Skip to main content

Full text of "Annual Reports of the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (1977-1992)"

See other formats


f\55' 



1 



I 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2013 



http://archive.org/details/annualreportsofm00mass_2 



^6 - 



C0I-2^10iT'.'.'3ALTH CF KJ:3SACKUSETTS 



MASSACKU32TT3 C0I#1I3SI0N AGAINST 



DISCRIMINATION 



First Ninety Day Report To The 
Governor And Clerks Of The 
Senate And House Pursuant To 
Ch. ^63 Of The Acts Of 1S76 



Respectfully submitted, 



JAirE 


C, EDKONDS, 


Chairman 


AI,EX 


FiODRIGUEZ, 


Coin.TiE3ioner 




STONSFIELD, 


Comir.issioner 



June 13, 1977 



State Library of Massadiusetts 
State House, Boston 



C.3 



This report is respectfully subnitted by the 
throe Cormnissionf^rs of the Mcssachusetts Comir.is.Tion Afairst 
Discrimination pursuant to the mancato of Chapter h63 of 
the Acts of 1976. 

I. ii:troductiom 

The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination 
vas created by the lof^islature in 19^6. V.^ien created, the 
Commission v^as kno\vn as the Massachusetts Fair Emplo^Tnent 
Practice Commission. In 1950, by legislative amendment, its 
name and caption v.'as changed to t*:e Massachusetts Commission 
Against Discrimination. Over the years to date, the Commission 
has seen multiple changes in itc stntutory mandate, primarily 
in the form of increa?ec jurisdiction. The .jurisdictional 
increases have generally anticipated the changes in and on 
the federal level and have made the Massachusetts Commission 
Against Discrimination a forerunner in the fight against 
discriminatory practices in employment, housing, education 
and in places of public accommodation. Indeed, some Massachusetts 
anti-discrimination legislation goes back to the l?to 1800' s. 

Hovever, the arti-ci" crimination legislation c^^ 
protective legislation so-called, ^ad no fcrum for en'f'orcem'^nt 
until the creation of the Commission Again:;t DI .^crimination cr 
the then F?ir Emplo3^cnt Practice CoTri.iiisci'^n, In its early 
cayc, t'':o Co^Tiission '^■''■z organiiic/i as ?n c'^'*7iry ranagcd by a 
part-time appoir.tinr ciith?rity. T'^o ComrnisTicn vc-s ^eacec. hy 



I 



p. Choirman and three nrrt-time Cormiss loners \:it'r solciriec 
of c 3,000 for the Ch?irn-?.n and i^-,O0C each for tb^ csr.ociato 
Cornnisc icncrs » Thicf^c "'^."'.arier i^vf^r "il.e ve^irs vor*^ r '^reciF'^'cl 
f rcT! "t'lrne "te "tine roprl " "their "^ec^'"' in l'^''''', "'heri "th° 
C' ^ rr*'^n' s gt"' ''r'.' v/qg i-^io^''r' ■ ^ " ^ t ^ ^ r'P-'' r-'^'^ +'V'>r- »• '^p.-i^^'j o-j-r< 

Notv'ith.'^te.ndir th.ese incrcasec, '^oth ■orivato anc' 
p^jbl^c nanageme^t stuc ■''■^^ indicct'^ thnt thr- ralaries of th*^ 
f^^^rnj' c 2 j Qj^fiT'c v.'er-"* ih "^r i 1 X V c" ''^r "t^ian ■^^■'^'^p ">f ci"^^'"*^ 
cin^'lar stT'te a^encie.v. There v.'a;i a f^ener,'.! feeling one 
belief that the lev; salaries rranted to thin Corznission reduced 
the number of candidates available for appointment to these 
very important positions. 

In the late 1960's and early 1970 's, multiple studies 
by Lecislative and Administrative La-/ Committees, Special 
Panels appointed by the S>:ecutive, and other observers of 
^^overnment or{];anizations, revie-zed the orcanizaticn of other 
stete anti-discrimination agencies. The studies covered the 
gambit frvnm asencies headed by strong e:':ecuti""e secretaries '.,'ith 
ten or more "^'^rt-tlme '■:n'~r'id Corni ssioners acti^.'^ rc h.c^rin^ 
officers, to one or t-'.-o agencies headed by full-tim.e CorT.insi oners . 
'.."■'•ile r'^'re, t^is latter f'^rm of cr,~anization "^rpeFr^d, at first 
blus'"', to be the m.ort nrn^^.'^ea^l':^ and efficient form of apnointi^T 
authrrlty, 

/.s ear]y as 1'"'70, ^nd conteminoraneou'' A'ith some of 
these studies, lerislotien '.:^3 crafted '^y tne HCAD General 
Co'T.sel and supportinr l<"^~i sin tors at^er.ptin-'; to reor,f;;nni7e 
the KCPd) at its top echelon by crr-^tin^ Aill-tlme Ccm.miss-' nners. 



-3- 

Tho rr-ticnalc /"or full-tinc Commissioners seems to 
!-i-v? been ^r^u^^.dec upon t -c basic concepts. First, the 
operation by prrt-birae Coniinissioners of a state agency with a 
bu'J^^t of almost one riillion collars appeared to some observers 
to be absurd, ?. -..-aste of resources and bad rrana^^ement. Second, 
those individuals firmly cornmittev.' to the concept of equality 
and pov.'erful enforcement of civil ri^^hts recognized early that 
the civil rights movement and the protective legislation already 
on the books required a full-time commitment, arid not part-time 
Commissioners. Other a/;^encies of state covemjnent dealing vith 
less substantive issues and problems were being governed by v;ell 
paid agency heads or Ccmrr.issioners. 

Steeped in this background, the Commission made its 
first attempt at reorganization during the 1971 legislative 
session, v;hen the then Cliairman of the MC/D, v;ith the assistance 
of then Representative Peter Mr snick and tiie former Attorney 
General of t>^e Commcnvealth of Mrssachusetts, Rob .rt 11, Quinn, 
filed the fir~t petition seeking to make the Commissioners of 
the agency full-time. 

This legislation v/ould have reduced the niJimber of 
Commissioners from four to three, making each of the three 
Commissioners full-time, •;ith a salary nf Q8,500'^^for the 
Ch^J.rman and ^1.^,500 for t'-'e associate mem.bers. 

1/ Tne mocest sr:larics arxrched to the bill v.'ore intended to 
■i'^cu.ce the bucket conscicv.s le^'islature to approve this re- 
organization pnck-'^ge. 



This ^.e^islGtion and several other bi.ll3 filed 
during the follo'.vinr; yerrc failed to muster the neceGsary 
c'.'prort in either the ilouso or the Senate to be packed, 
T:ie ne::t major effort by zhe Commjcsion to secure a full- 
tir-e appointir.,*" authority came in 197^. During the 197^^ 
r:o.-:cion, Representative Chcrles Flaherty and Senator Joseph 
DiCarlo filed similar bills in the House and in the Senate 
to make changes in the I'^.ssachusetts Conmission Against 
Discrimination, This legislation like the earlier bill 
v:ould have reduced the number of Commissioners from four 
to three and v.'ould mal'.e each of the positions full-time. 
The proposed salaries under these bills v;ere 1' 23, 000 for 
the Chairman and 1'21,000 for the associate members. 

Once again, the bill failed to produce the necessary 
support in either chamber and failed to pass. 

The Commission nov/ had throe full years of experience 
v:ith the legislature and ^'ith both supporters and non- supporters 
cf its proposal. V.'ith this experience and history behind it, 
the Commission made an additional effort in the 1975 and 1976 
session. 

Elected in November of 1975, Governor Kichael S. 
Dukakis early in his administration supported the concept of 
a full-time commission bill. A nev/ bill v/as drafted and 
filed for the next session, \Vliile there was substantial 
support from the Executive Office and from the Executive Office 
cf Administration & Finance, the bill v;a3 unable to muster the 



i 



-5- 

r\ecezzz*ry sup^irt b'^forp the clocc of tho seozion and this 
firzt attenrt Goverr.c^r D^jl:al:is failed, 

T:!9 bill v.E:S rcfilec irr.n'?'^ lately r.nc. the Governor's 
1 e~i .-Ir^tix'e cffico, tc'~et";ier v/itb KC^AI) ctr.ff, coordinated 
their effort for passage cf the fiill-tine coinniGsion bill, 

Ar;7-;ir5 that this legislation v;ould make a major 
state afrency r.ere accountable in t':>rms of time, resources, 
a-v: effectiveness, t}ie Commission lobbied hard and lon^; 
amon.^ its reg^ilar supporters and from areas not usually in 
the camp of MC/D. The Commission and the Governor's staff 
ar-^ucd that a more effective KCAD could provide better 
services to Complainant and Respondent alike; that the 
efficient movement of cases and a higher level of due process 
v.'ould provide better remedies for those entitled to them and 
more expeditious disposition for the general public. Viliile 
these arcum.ents did not necessarily produce support fr^m all 
levels for this legislation, it had the effect of neutralizing 
some of the past opposition making passage a clear possibility. 

On the 15th day of October, 1976, the Great and 
General Court of the Ccmmonv/ealth of Massachi'.setts passed 
C:rpter '•63 of the Actr. of 1976 establishing full-time 
Cormissioners for the Conmission Ag-inst Discrimination. The 
Governor signed the bill on October 22, 1976, and attached 
thereto rin emergency rrcamble making the bill effective on 
October 26, 1976. 



-6- 



Ha?3achu:^ettz , 3irp nto-^.erield of L'orthamptc^. , Hp.ssach'.ise'^.tc, 
ani Jane C, Ecnoncs cf Sharon, Masjachuscttc, v.'ere s\'orn 
in on the 7t?- day of Marc':, 1977, as Coi?2:;iGsioners anc the 
Chainr^an respactively by Governor Michael S, Dul:al:i5, as 

first full-time appoirtments to the Massachusetts Comir.issior 
A-^ainst Discrimination. Chairman Edmonds and Commissionors 
Rodri^Tuez and 3t3?'icfield toe': their respective offices v.'ith 
full knov.'ledgc of the ba:;ic problems surrounding this important 
state agency. There v.'&s sufficient reason to believe that 
the p^c sace of Chapter / 6? of the Acts of 1976, and its 
implementation through full-time appointments, v;ould help to 
alleviate, if not obviate, the problems naj^in^; I^CAD. Indeed, 
tnc legislature mandated by specific lanruaf^e in this bill 
that the Ccmm-issi oners prepare comprehensive reports 

detailing the effect of the passa^re of this Act upon the 
ca~c disposition process of the Commission, \;ith particular 
empha«-is on the roducti'^'^ of the present backlog of pending; 
cases." The Act furt>ier requires that this report be subm.ittod 
t'^ the Governor and to ti e Clerlis of the Senate and th«=> House 
of Ficresentatives every '~'0 days for a period of one year after 
the eff'^ctive date of this Act. 

V.^iili^ the mandate and emphasis is clearly on the 
''bao'';lo2;" problem so-called, it is also cle^^r that the le5;;islature 
^■•r\ ' 1 t er t ed jv^'^'^* 'i '.'hat '■■^►'■o"?^ '^f'^c'^t" t^"''^ '»^,p<^'7pt< 
C';a'^t'^^r ^ C"^ ■•"■'•lid ^lav^ /"ae entire c^'eratior of MCI/J.\ 



The b:'lc-ncc of this report v:ill dc^l \-nth cpocifio 
problenc end isGucc and the effoct o"^ the paccp^e end 
inplerientition of Ch.?rt'^r ' of fr.o Actn -f 1977. 

It ic- -■'Fiporta^^t to ncto heforc turni*^^ "tho 
substontivo portiorf> thst thi5: firL-t 90 d^y report n^jst 

o.coprr tolp mopouro, repzrt, and dot^^.il tho effect of the 

f 

p^con^e of Chapter ^'63 of the Act;: of 1;7'S upon the a^^enc^'" 
Cenorolly and upon cace disposition and th.p backlog; r^'^ob?.o!T! 
npecif ically, 

II. MCAD-CASB BACKLOG 

MCAT) is the state anti-ciscriminaticn agency for the 
Conr-onvealth of Massachusetts. It is a qua c."! -judicial Ccmr.ission 
mandated to enforce the anti-ciscriminatior^ 1g\;s of the Cominon- 
v:ealth of Massachusetts ond to act as the so-called r;EP deferral 
agency for the federal Equal Employment Oppcrtujiity Ccmmission. 
In this capacity, the CcnLvission receives approximately 2,000 
cases per year, each rctiuiri-ng various degrees of case prccossing 
This processing may require a simple lacl: of jurisdiction 
determination or a hig>^ly sophisticated investip;ation resulting 
in a finding of probable cause, statutory* conciliation efforts, 
rnc full adversory public liearing in t!ie event t^e crse cannot 
be settled. Thereafter, find orders of this Commissi'^n ray 
ro'^_uire rppell-jte review; or enforcement through the courts of 
tne Commonv.'ealth of Massochusetts. 

In brief su;'".m?rv, this represents the r.tptutor}'' mandate 



-8- 

of thi:; ComrniTcion. Thrnu^h the veers, f'^r n'jTt:r)le rerconr;, 
.>o:ne identifiable, otherr. nore rxe^-ulous, c^rcc ''~p.ve become 
r'SoIil D ".^.ec: in v^rieuc nu^ibers -nd der;r'='C3 of cfz-? ■^rccesGln" 
opop-^^nrr orjo ^ 'th'^ iTie^'t j^Griou*", cfiTT^c c i ^^i ci^T "^.1 ec 

■'"-'■is Conni ~Fi':^r. r.-'ic '''t'd. Over t""'-? ve^^r.~ nulti^lo •'^i.-tenr'tr. 
havv bj^n npce t,o rec.'.'ce ?r in tot.o the c?ce br-cklej, 

'.-.nilc rr?.ny cf t^iese e.tter.ptG have been siicceGGfi^l , at least 
in n-^rt, tbcy have in tum generated ether t^'^^'^i" of ^a'^klo;'; 
or delays in ot'r.or areas ef thi:- Connlssicn's cper-^tions. 

It appears that part-time conimissicner's vere simply 
not equipped in terns ef tirae or in resources to devote the 
necescary energies to develop a plan for case processinr, 
'•hic^' v:hen ir.plenented could de?l '.-ith cu'»^rent case processing, 
f"? b'^C'Tlc.^ and all oth^^r production prohloTis ef this agency 
s 1 ni il t an e u sly . 

There is no need at this juncture to atter.pt to 
c'nrly?e the reasons for t!ie haclilo']; nroblen except to note that 
this chronic probler" is the direct result of three conditions 
••'•:ic^ hcve been part of "^^^is agency for at l^ast the nast 5 years. 
Tliey ore in short an ever- increasing jurisdiction as the 
ie.':islature souf;;ht to er.tend further protection to its constituency^ 
and their civil rights; a budget vhich failed to heep pace '.-ith 
the increased jurisdiction, and in some y^ars one \;hich has been 
deeply cut, and finally, a more sophisticated public v.'hich in 
those ? years more than doubled the nuj^ber of oonplaints filed 
'.'it'" the Con"^ 'n"^^ 'i'^"'ei^^ '^'"ob'' "^mo ■j^'^'pr'^^s'^*^*" ^crr". ^'^i^b"' e 
challen'^e and one vZ-nic^' P'7.rt-time management has been unable to 
hnndle to date. 



1 



It is interertinrj to note tbr.t there is no hard 
ard fezt definitio^^ of vh2.t bncklo^ ner.nn. It has, fron time 
to tirr.i^, "been defined i'^ ar man*'' vcvo ar thoT^a have been 
attar.ptc to deal v;it:i the problem, "..ith the benefit of a 
recently coveloned I'anrf^er: ent Information Syrte*^,"' by mid- 
Ju!'y cf 1977, this Commission v.'ill for the first time in this 
agency's history be able ts identify the exact number of open 
cases, the names and addresses of each Complaina!it and 
Respondent, the case number for each file and its filin:^ date 
and exact status. 

Until the Mrr.-^roment Information System is fully 
inplementcd and operational, v/e mu~t depend upon present manual 
system.s to identify and approxii^ate our present ope'^ coses 
a'*aitir^ proc^ssin^ ^nc /-^r det3rmir.sti':'n by thi? Comrisri'^'^. . 

i.e notf th-tt '"no of the reports ^enoratec' by the 
Community Bisnute Services Division of the Americ'"'^ Arbitration 
Ass'^C' at j 0'*'' ^''as docuT^-^toc^ ouite '..ell the lonr" delo'^^'s i'^ case 

1-> ~ r» 2^ -J- ~ 'jvif^pji p''"'"' s ' t m '"'^^^ od s a^'' su' '^ e^.ts '^"•'''^t ■'■^'^ noA'* 

TJ-. — 

Tne I'lana.'^omient Information System referred to herein represents 
one of th*" -nroducts received by this ajencv as a result ^f a 
contract entered into between MC/JD and the Com.m.unity Dispute 
Services section of t^ie /jncrican Arbitration Association. T/is 
contract \;ith American Arbitration A3S'^ci''^ti?n ^.'?s paid for 
through a speciol r-rant secured by MC.'^D from t'lo Equal Emplo^Tient 
Opportunity Commission on Sontember "3, 197^, ''.:hich funds v;ere 
tyicn subcontracted to the TTj-vidor on I^ovember 17, 1976. The 
pro?3ram is desi-pned to estoblis^"^ an in-house capability to increase 
c^st effectiveness of this o'^onry in case nrocessinf^; s^necialized 
stsff training for existing MC/J) invest i.frators and attorneys; and 
the development and implementation of a com.puterized manacroment 
inform.ation system, A copy cf the ,^rant contract and the sub- 
contract are attached hereto and m.ari'od liihibits /J. and A2, .Ml 
ether relev^2nt data conoemir'" this contract and its ir'^lcmo"^teti':*n 
is rvoilable at th*"* office*" "^f t'o Comm^ sri '^'^ "Trir* .■^y'.' ini'ero~tod 
};erson. 



-10- 



' - ./ - ------- J • 

Conmisirior. vill r-3^'?rc r^ll cc.ccs filed prirr t.c Jcr.uary 1, 
1977 r.s it? backlog. Since v/e c~^".')t ?.r!ticirrte full 
inplemcntaticn of nc: cnsc proccssinr;;; procedurec until r.id- 
Ju]y of 1977, v'O cannot ugo ? "91— day" ctandarc to define 
b2cklo~. Hov.'e"^''or , v;o r^o anticipate c:^nsidr»rin3 i': ?'.s r 
st-jndard in the vor^' near future. 

Through our r.^iniial eye tern' • v;e have determined th?.t 
this Cheney hac an open case inventory as of Hay Jl, 1977 of 
3,f?ll cascc. This firnrc inoludcc cace? filod up to ^:^nd 
includinr that date. For t/.o laat three r.ont:i ^^ericd, this 
Cor?jni3!:ior. hao processed and clcaed some 6^'? cases. This 
represents an ir.creane of cases closed for the sane T^eriod 
curing 197^'. For tliis z^.no 99-dpy period, this Cornissicn has 
secured and paid cut S,B3,G32.A6 in danaje a'"ards. This fi^ji-ire 
represents an increase of 51,8G?,03 for the Grme period last 
year. These sviinraries for the last 90 days hav^ been culled 
fror' full reports for each of the last tiir?o months, copies of 

\'^ich are attac^icd heret"i and narh.cd S^d^iibits C1,C? and C5. 

/ 

^' The manual system cc r.^^ot ^e r-^^arc'ed as total?.y accurate and 

those fi'p.ires are sub.'oct to revision upon full implcnentqtion 
of the Kanascmcnt Information System vhic-'* is anticinated 
som.otime in nid-Julv of 1977. 



This increase ir production end rocovor^,' is directly relJitcc to 
t^''iC' 2rriD}iSGir- ''^'^c'^ vt? '^qTo con'^cv'"'^ to our ots.'^''* '■■'t^'^ ro3pi?ct 
to the bao'-ilc" prcblor, r>r v-ell our direct porticipatior in 
the cn'-e rroocssin.;;; c^fz-r't, Vc I'rcer.'Ttan^ frorr* our G-^nercl 

t'-'-o i'ir£:t. tir.? i*^ 5 ^'''^sir:: th?t Conrd 3ci onerc have been directly 
invjlvc'J in the cace '>r'^oe.'3Ginj; effort, ThtC additional berofitr. 
'if thi.i effrrt-sno pr-'K^'iction vhi'jh t: is cff-^rt and nroductior 
"'.•a:: ^^ad '^n oteff ca'inot bo measured ^-y nurnbera Qr dollar? alone. 

Not'-.-it'^atandin^ the aubstantial increase in procesair^;, 
"0 cannot b^' ^atir-.f i --^d it ",ii. c reniair.in^, iix^'ontory haa been 
brcu;^ht to a r.ana^oable level, and until ve have achieved a 
"Cl~day" standard in dcfirin.? backlog; itself. 

B • )'h"j T Q H "'"^r'' n '^a z'^c Prelirpinar^/ Ap''^eal.s 
V'e noted in an earli'^r "action of this report ty"'.c-t 
earlier attempts t'^a?t the bac':lc~ problcn usually generated 
nr*.''''i-bacI:lo''a in ot'^o:^ operations of this agency. It ia 
ir.^v'-r+'-nt to note at t' is juncture that durinr the relevant 

dc?v period, t^"^ i r Cor'-lTion has hrou?^^:t caaea to pu'"*lic 
i-r.'.-rj^v- fv/ eac^i o"^ •..•■■^ ' a ' '-a bec^ a ^ti pie ted cr dispcacd of 

/ "- -^ ' — '-^ — • * — " 

T*^e Cor.iriasion is contj nitinr"; to enperinent vith nultl-trac^i 
rcaordjn.';^ devices to r?~'cerd tcatir.O'"'y at aublic hearings to obviate 
t'" need and expcnaa of costly court ateno.^raj^'hiers. The results 
of tnese^'vu.ll be tJ:^o su^* oat and p-^rt of the second 90-da'"' report. 

^''Ve hove been advised by our General Counsel that preliminary 
fj->->>-.^r>2^ 2 hearin'^s '''^rc "^riTi-^j^n"' t ac^ieduled once or tvicc vear b'^' 
fcrrr.cr adnin"' atrationa. T.hro^''"'^ our rule— mak.in-"" and nolicy na^-iin^ 
proceriureSj nralirri'^'"^" anToal 'loarin'^s \'ill be held c\'erv ^ 5 daySf 
at least. Our present ac/;edulinfr has virtu^^lly eliminatec all 
present pendin;;; apr-e'ls, aone o'f v'.'^ich d-?te bach to cases closed 
durinj 197/:- and 1975. 



icentifi2c' fiwcu^"-'- c-ir in'-'riir.l syston r.;mo ].2^i cases 
icV: are j;.."^.itinr y-v-blic hearing, T'.irou:;!: our revised 

icvloped T:rocedur'^c fo'" ciisniscin^ tho.-c caser> v;hivch do 
not v;arrar.t ^>Ljblic hcarir.~s, and other pre-trial bearing 
procedures vhic^: .'-hould help to substantially reduce and 
eliirdnate this smaller bac'^loj of cases av;aitir.g public 
hearing. 

Fiarthor, durir.-'T this relevant e.n-day period, the 
Comir.issior has scheduled some 102 preliminary appeal hearings. 

Gone ccses v;ere hiOard on the merits and decit^ions issued. 

Ar additional __cases v.-ere disposed of through the default 

pro:::eQures . 

Viliile the tasi: of disi^.osing of a large number of 
d::ted and aged oi)cn cases r.?y appear onerous, if not 
i-npossible, v;'.t;i e limited staff resources currently'' available, 
'.:e strongly belief"" tY.Lt MC/J*, through the implementation of 
ne-' procedures and innovative teclmiques caiinot orJ.y keep 
current vith cases filed at the Commission but can continue 
to reduce the inventor}' of baclilcg rases that liavo plagued 
t' is agency over the past fev; years. 

V.'e discussed earlier the special EEOC grant v.'hich has 
■provided the funds for a training program; analysis of MCAD 
nrocedures and the development of a Management Informstion 
System, \.'hat follov:s is a summary of tliose procedures and 
i^^ovrtions ^'hi c'l vhcn fully implem.ented v;ill alio""-; for pt. 
Incr'^asec "p-t*^ o"^ ^^r-o ■^y^o'^'^ss'' n^ a'ld result in the elimination 
o:^ the I'C/J? hach.log. 



-13- 

C. Trn' rin~ rn:" IJov Froceaur^s 

IIC^L ^.^r, be-_?r: an extensive project utilizing; tho 

cer"*'ic3r: of tl-ie Community Dispute Service Divicicn of the 

/-:cric"ir. /j^bitration AG::ccintion calling for the implenentaticn 

cf ri,""'' proc -'?c.'jrc.'3 ; the covclopTiort of a conrutorizcc riar.efcment 

ir"'.'Grrr.-.ti on cyston-;; end t i*? traini^Tr of all otoff ir. irivcstif;;ritive 

sl'-i'llr. Currently, the average l'C:D case ta':es more than 13 

r.enthc to process. Upon the conpletion of the REOC funded 
c / 

prelect,^- it ic er.tir.otc" that the average case vill be processed 
iii or \;ithin 50 dayc. 

The no'- procecures -./ill become operational in 
' p^roxirnptely three r.ont'-c. They vdll include revised methods 
for taking diccrinination complaints and will a.llov; staff to 
r:uicl:ly dispose of cases that are frivolous or vjiithout obvious 
rrerit. Aire to be implemented is the utilization of pre- 
determination settlem.ent conferences v.'hich v;ill permit 
resolution of cases prior to len^^thy invostisation. Fii.rther 
streemlined investi'^ative ^"^ocedures are bein^ developed and vill 
be stardardired to elimin'^te the current ad lioc approach to 
fiLld ir.vesti rations. 

Ir. crc'er to rscuro t^'O ouccess of the expedited case 
recess i" ' pr'^ceaurer^ , •'^n intensive training pro;^^^— ^''^•^ been 
''I'.ec.i'le'" for !!C:J) '^t' ff, Jv2ie ?0, ^97'^, a t^-'o veek initia? 

tr' r"*^o~ram '.'ill f^'^mm'^nce f'^iv invo'^t i '"'^ tors and attor*neyr. 

".rr ' itilirot.i "^n 'f nr."' ■^T^o'^eluros a^d i:i basic negotiations, 

..0 cxpec:: .tit nroductir.n rn(-^r t':e iiEOC ^r'^nt funded ccntr-'^ct 
00 d eli'^'-T^rod or. or bcf-jre the 1 • t f'?.3' of h i ■ , l'?7B, 



-1/ « 

mediation, cor.cili?tior , f-.^ct- ^i'^.cir^, invccti^? live techniquec 
-j>-i.'] ~^'i^"i 3, 1 "b'l^^ "ti"'^ T "'^^ c (-> £ ■• Qr\'^ ''i'^'' ,'»'->'j — o p "t '^r?.'"''^ 1'"^ T^.' 

•- ^" i f'i cc/ -tl."' ir^ cr'c ''3X'LlT"i"''^'' irnT>r'ov" 'fc^i'^ cs-^o j .f'^coc^in'" 
cpj "/ril i'^r 03 :)f tho Conr i lor , 

0*^20 ■'^r'Gcossi r*^ hcic .loor "too ec't''.bXisnm9n"t of o oo'^''^ii"tcTizGc' 
r.OHc "omon't inf on?.?. x ion. nyctorrt, Bc^iimin^; in or.rl}'' June, "the 
Coriricsion './ill receivo ?. '-'eelily printout indicating the ctotus 
cf 00.-::^ filocl at KC/D. T^-^-:- -y-ter: -.-ill free staff of tccicuG 
record I'ocpin- and 3tc.tir.tic ^zthorinZy and more importantly, 
^ifcirt t:ie CoTiniccion in i Ctcntif^^in^ problem areas in the cr-se 
dicroGitlon proceos. 

Many orr^ari oral o';c-^'~03 ore br'inp; i'nr.tituted to 
complement the procediirr.l chan^roG at MC/iD. More note'-.'orthy is 
t!'- formation of a ContrT-l Divicion. Comprised, of existing 
s't:rff, the Control Di virion vill m.aintain the m.anagement 
infcrm.aticn system, coordinate cchednlin;^ of LOFC appeals 
hcar2n';:s and public rior.rin^s, monitor case processin:^, including; 
the identification of bcttleneckE, and respond to inquiries 
on the status of cases. In performin/^ these functions t}:e 
Control Division vrill free the time of supervisory and investif^ative 
st^ff and permit thorn to concentrate on the closing of cases. 

D, L'"'";^! Int<^m.': rrd Volunteers - Special Task Force 
In addition to t'-o cff-^-rts bein^ made under the ESOC 
rro.joct, sneci?.! uni"^ s bei'*"" created to disnose of olccr oa.Tes 
i"" t^e case inverrtory. T'"e '■•nit 'all be^in operating on Ju'^.e 6, 
197'^, for a period of thr''-- mcntris, a-^d '••.ill be coT^prised. '^f 



I 



c"^ ctudent:: h?.3 been vory borieficial to thic c?.;:ency and there 
ir every ren~on to believe thr.t their cer^/ices this riiniuer vill 
result in a 5i;^jiif iccnt rc:>uction of the cane inventory. 

III. G-'AFTEI: OF T]-:5 ACT3 OF in76-0THER EFFSCT3 

V.'e believe thet the benefits to be derived from full- 
tir;e comF»issioners cannot alv/ays be measured nuantitativcly, 
\!z believe the presence of comr.issioners on a rc^lar full-tine 
basis has produced an accountability v.iiich lias lent stability 
to the agency and has helped create a more positive attitude 
amon.'- emplo3''ces. 

Continuin.'3 v;ith th" mandate of Section 5 of Chapter 
^■C^ 01 the Acts ?f 197'"", ve -<:ill nov; deal \.'ith certain other 
effpctr produced by the passar^o of this legislation. 

This Coirriissi on, as presently constituted, carj^.et 
and '..ill not tal:e credit for all institutional and or~anizationa 
chan?;es v:hich result in success to this ag;ency. There are 
^overal such projects r.hich v/ere conceived during earlier 
administrations -rnd continued during our immediate predecessor's 
term of office. At several points in this report ve referred 
to this pn^ency^z contr-iot v:ith the Community Dispute Services 
Division of the American Arbitration Association for an 
e'.'C'luati '-•n of 1>76 case processin^^ and an analysis of the 
management str-jcturo of th"^ Commission A.'^ainct Discrimination, 
The seeds for this innovative des.''.''n v.'cre first conceived by 
former Chairr.an Glendcrri M, Piitnar;, Her initial efforts, 
to'"other ' 'ith a fim 'j^-TMi ti^ont fr'"""^ o'^oretrrv of Adm. inistr'^- bion 
•T'l F'mr.cQf Jobn R, Bnr-:loy, h elped t' brin';' t'lis 3">roposal 
to its pre.c^ent r/t^ate. V.'e ar^'' oxtr-^mely j'l.oased to be a part 



nelpo'i to accole""atp cortain roculto and [;;oP-l.r,, The 
ConTir-oionerc , in unir'^'^., have de'.ionr.trp.tod t}ieir ccr.fidenco 
in itG rotcntial and in itr, cf f ectivenesc. Full anc 
ir'^cciato innlementatior- of its c^^lIz vill in t\im develop 
fv;"'! ^^^i^countrbi] ity an'' ofiicicnry by every person in t^ir 
a~ency, 

B, Fedaral Grant Pro^rrTie 

This agency ha a been the recipient for several 
year.^ of a re£,Tilar rrant fron. f-^^e J^qiial Eriployment Opportunity 
CoTiiniacion, In addition, this c^may ^.--as tlie ra'cipient of a 
r.peaial [;rant from tlie Department of Ileusinr a^d Urban 
De"^'alopm.er^t in the amou'^'t -r^f •'^•1??,000, v.bich "^uncr became 
:-V'il'"ble Curi'T.''^ t^'"" r*''!! t 90-c;'^y period. '..Iii.le both of 
these £_r?nts had been nojotiatac ^I'ior to our anpoi'^tment , 

individ'^al coni^j ssicner has nov/ been assii^'ned the 
"•^oancnsibi 1 ty to nen''trr each of the ."^rant nro'^rans thereb"^' 
reli ev:' n^';; our Gcner-^l CouTiael fran tliic adnini ztrative 
responaibility a^d burden. It ia our hope that the additional 
'•'ei^ht of the office cf ihe corr.nie3iorer ard his direct 
l"//?lvGmeiit in the rrrnt pro'^ran. '. ill hel"'^ this agency i''^ 

A r.a.jer ac^ec^ cf t'"'ic Corrniaai'^n' r increased 
.■"v.ri a':"'iction is it:- a^-c::lle:" Previa'-: aysten» The A-95 

R'^vio'..' ■^rccaar ~ r c^'j'*^aiete- ii'^' the Uriltod r.t"'tes Conarcca 

y^-rM,T ^r;r>-f,-[r-'v-jc r>-f t'' c '-t'to ^'X\'^ ro'^ian^'il level, T^ertiaulcT'^lv 



-17- 

ir.^'^zt. This rcviev; f -!r jti cr. '.::z jocr yczzzz. cn to t'liz 
(?~~^z^'» I Jc "tv.' ^ '''K s"t c."-''" ^ " 2.<' C"' i v-v T v> Q 2_ p 2. ^ nd •^^^■'■v''' ■-^'>i_ 

rozourccc, our rrocccosGorc initiate:' a lir.ited pror^rir. 
v.'herein MC/iD v/ould czr.-^ucz r civil rl Thto reviev; cf federal 
,rr"^.t crrlicatior.c and -nrovlcc advir.ory ccmraertz to t'-.o 
stcto cloaringhcucG in f^^e Office cf State Flcnjnin^, In 
order to r^eet this comnit:r.cnt, the af^oncy had to divert 
ncnT?al ctaff reGOurcec norra'^lly cnrp^cd in the Corr.iGGion' a 
rc^/.lar caae rroccccin^ friction , 

Cur predeceacor? recor;r.irod the ^jreat potential 
tz ecLahlicl- equality o"^ '^yrntvnity in the delivery of 
rcrviiec- and in emplo'.'iTi.erit betr t^ie atatc md municipal 
level in the Comr.onv.'cclf . Ilajjaciuiaettc, -..it^out resort 
to the eoniplaint process '■.l'.' the use of tha A-C"5 Revie\: system, 
Ho^-.-ever, the agency suffered via the diversion of resources 
to t: is effort. 

After having had the opportunity to reviev/ this 
Comr.ission' s A-95 systerr., ^-.c recognized immediately that 
present staff v/as over-extended in its function and could 
not properly perfonri t'^? rcvie'.'s necessary and develop the 
potential that the prcrooc v-ould othen-;ise provide. 
Accrrcin.'3ly , \:c reques"^?d zur General Counsel to rcviev the 
r'bT jrint negotiated hy our rrodeoessors and determine 
'•;hcther cr not '.;e coulc ren'?Totiate the score of v;ork to 
narrov the pro.ject ard rr/.tnict t: e scope substi'Lntially to 
an C/^^' ^^s^o^ o^ z'^Z' / ■•''"■ '"' "^inh^ ^ t", t^ia cou 'd ho done 



then the redircctior. cf thoGe f'jnds in tlieir entirety to tlie 
c?velcpment a r?ull " t-t^ civil rights revicn- capa"bility 

help tc insure e-uality of opportunity for minorities 
"■i^'C '..-o'non in -?11 etc to a.^.d f ocGrclly-assisted projects in the 
Ccmc nv;e p 1 th . 

V'ithin the relevant 9C-day period these nec'otiaticns 
v:cr3 coHipletec and the scope of v;ork modified to emphasize the 

expansion effort and to delete ether projects of a less 
inpcrtant nature. 

This policy change has had both an immediate and 
positive effect. V.ith these increased resources, wo have been 
able to prepare more substantive comments on the pending 
applications, increase the n'^n:ber of reviev/s and develop a 
^>ound and responsible relationship v;ith other state and 
federal offices involved in this process. V.'e are particularly 
^r-^tifiod to sec thiO T^uhlic response to this acti"»'"ity. A 
copy of •?. recont Barton Globe editorial is attached hereto and 
!ri?rhed 'ic^^ibit P. 

T"ne acccle!''ati on and imnrovericnt cf this agency's 
/'-T> rovie'-.' caponiljty vill I^elp to insure equal opportunity 
for !::inorit '.Of: an.' '••OT:cn and assure tlic continued flov; cf 
for- oral doll:-rr into t-:0' cities and to^T.s in the Cor.rp.cnv.'ealth 
o'' Massachusetts. 

IV. C0NCLU3IOIT 

V, e '•••ill not '.isc this section of trie report to 
s^i^i'^arizo all of tr ^ rzi^-^r vrich vo have ntt'-r.ptcr to artioula 
ir ::^-e :"revious sections.' r.r -av-r, ve do feel t^'at it is 
inportant tc reiterate that t.:-.s first 9''^-day report represents 



! 
i 



_] 9- 

t'r.c "*"C30 lli'.e frcr. v'.Lc' "^hc next Vrveo reT^orts iccuo. 

^•6"^ i''. it.L, vropcr Ic ji3lrli"\'c ".v-' hictoriccii ^'orcp^cti'^x ; 
identify t^e major problemc facing this agency and the 
Cc'ir.i cciorerc v.-hon we zooli office; and the immediate steps 
v.'hicr. •.'o have talien to ccidress t!":c problems and the issues 
facin:3 us. Some of our efforts have produced immediate and 
xan^ible results. Others v.'ill take more time. 

Respectfully submitted, 



S>:hibit M - ESOC Grnn"^. Cantract No. EEO 76099 for tho amount 
cf 171,539.^8 

E::^.ibit A2 - A^^reoment i-etv.'oen I'C/iD and CcLimunity Dispute 

Gervicco of the /inorican Arbitration Association 
dated 17 November 1976. 



ExI-iMt CI - March 1977 

E:.-ibit C2 - April i:77 

E:'hib:t C3 - May 1977 

E:::.ibit D - Bost-n Globe Editorial 




} ifU- 



C0Mr>10NWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 
MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION AGAINST 



DISCRIMINATION 



Second Ninety- Day Report To The 
Governor And Clerks Of The 
Senate And House Pursuant To 
Chapter 463, Of The Acts Of 1976 



Respectfully submitted, 
JANE C. EDMONDS, Chairman 
ALEX RODRIGUEZ, Commissioner 
SAMUEL STONEFIELD, Coimnissioner 



Sfafe Library of Massacfiusetts 
State House, Boston 



Md 



I'hls sccotid ii'..'i.y :r;y .Ivy^rl l, iv^puc tful 1 y GubiiiitLod 
tjy ! 'jc three Jo;;i('ii i c)>j' I'.-j ef Du: i liiiL^uaehus'-- tts Coifiiriisjiion 

'ifii-i. i; 1 .scr'"' fiotlon i/iit't:uunT. to t.he mandate of Chapter h63 
of l!.e ..otj. of l97t'->. 

I . .i: -i'i'!{UDii:'L'T0T4 

':'>iis i'e]iort repre:jents the second subraission of the 
r'asijacliusetts Commisision Against Discrimination detailing the 
effect of the pasija^e of Chapter 463 of the Acts of 1976 upon 
tne case disposition process of the Commission, and in particular, 
on the reduction of the present backlog of pending cases. 

For purposes of continuity, we respectfully call your 
attention to the first Ninety Day Report submitted on or about 
the 20th day of June, 1977. 

II. I4ANAGEMENT REFORMS 

The first Ninety Day Report submitted by this Commission 
outlined in some detail the management reforms implemented by 
the recently appointed full-time Commission and their objectives. 
Many of the systems and plans detailed in that first report are 
now in operation. Because we have experienced some delays in 
implementing all aspects of this management information system, 
the subcontract has been extended by agreement of all the 
parties, up to and including January 28, 1978. However, the 
Commission's case inventory, and training process, and the 
establishment of standardized personnel policies have been 
completed in full. 

During the first 90 days of our tenure, we have completed 
the plans and system to convert the various docketing, record- 
keeping and report systems dealing with the status of cases 



under investigation from a manual to an automated system. 
Preliminary to this effort, an intensive two-day inventory 
of all cases in the agency was necessary to determine the 
exact status and location of each file and to determine the 
number of files lost in prior years. The data was then 
transcribed for coding and keypunching. 

Lost files constitute a significant percentage of so- 
called backlog. Admittedly, identification of "lost" cases 
presents a serious problem. \7e have elected to address the 
issue of "lost" cases in order to determine hov/ to deal 
effectively with this segment of backlog virtually ignored 
to date. 

The present management information system enables the 
agency to track the progress of each case through a number of 
processes including investigation, conciliation, appeal and 
public hearings. 

Since June, v/e have been generating a full series of 
reports on a bi-monthly basis. These reports include an 
alphabetic listing by complainant and by respondent which 
describes the most recent action on the case, the date of that 
action and the person (investigator, staff attorney or Commis- 
sioner) completing that action. Additionally, a case status 
report lists the same information (event, date, person) for 
each action taken on the case since it v/as filed; this 
report lists the cases chronologically and in docket number order. 
All three reports provide significant benefits as a management 
tool v;ith the production of several bottleneck reports both 
in detail and in summary. The bottleneck summary tells how 



cian V {^ases are curreriLly in each event status. The bottleneck 
detail lists the docket number and complainant's name for all 
cases by status in order of elapsed days since the last action 
(event). In this way, the Commission Is able to focus on the 
cases that have been delayed in any one event for whatever 
period of time it deems excessive and notify departmental 
managers or individual staff personnel of the Commission's 
concern for improvement. 

The reports are used, also, to answer status inquiries 
from the parties, EEOC, and other departments of the 
Commonwealth on a timely basis. The response time for a 
standard inquiry equals less than 30 seconds, sharply reduced 
from the past high of several hours or even days. 

Current efforts are being spent on "cleaning up the files," 
i.e., adding information previously omitted or deleting 
extraneous data entered when the master file was created. It 
should be noted that the computerized files are only as accurate 
as the manual card file from which they were created. In a real 
sense, we are correcting all of the record inaccuracies that 
have been accumulated in the last ten years. Needless to say, 
this is a project which will continue throughout the third 
quarter, 

III. THE BACKLOG EFFORT 

One of the most difficult problems in dealing with backlog; 
is to avoid creating sub or mini backlogs in other areas of the 
Commission's operation. Equally important has been the diffi- 
culty in maintaining high level case processing efficiency 
together with the normal standards of due process to the 

-3- 



parlies involved in a char^^e process. Increases in the 
(|jantity of backlog cases resolved alone will not impress 
the new Commission unless every reasonable effort has been 
made to guarantee the rights of complainants and respondents 
alike. Thus every administrative closeout, without a 
determination on the merits, is without prejudice to the 
complainant. Multiple levels of notice have been established 
before a case is closed and every administrative closure is 
susceptible to a re-opening by a complaining party for good 
cause shown. Further, it has been established by this 
Commission that the standards for "good cause" be liberally 
applied . 

The obvious objective of any backlog approach is to dispose 
of and to close as many cases as possible within the established 
period of time. For purposes of this effort, we set a 6 to 8 
week period for phase one that began on or about the 22nd day 
of July, 1977. It continued for an 8 week period. 

Our initial effort or first stage backlog produced certain 
results. We have identified all open cases requiring further 
processing for closure. We have identified a significant 
number of "lost" cases on files which in turn will require a 
strategy. Finally, we have during this period channelled 
approximately 425 backlog case folders to staff for case 
processing. The results follow: 

1 . total number of cases in backlog effort 425 

2. total number of cases closed 261 

Phase two of the backlog effort was started on or about 

October 7, 1977 contemporaneous with the implementation of 

-4- 



the new case processing techniques. ' As part of the nev/ 
processes, field representatives will be required to turn in 
their older case load and v/ill be assigned current cases. 
The returned case folders , together v/ith our orher non-current 
cases, v/ill be treated as backlog and assigned to a fully 
staffed backlog unit. This unit will consist of two senior 
MCAD investigators, CETA employees, and approximately ten lav/ 
student interns. This unit will follow procedures similar to 
those.- used in phase one. The results of this process will be 
reviev/ed in our next report. 

't'e have clearly accepted both the challenge and the mandate 
of Chapter 463 of the A.cts of 1976, and have demonstrated our 
commitment and intent to end this Commission's backlog problem. 
To date, we have employed every reasonable effort to maintain 
this commitment, and to continue to search for new ways and 
methods to increase productivity on backlog case processing 
while staying current on new charges. 

'.Tiile inroads have been made into the backlog problem, 
eliminatinn of the problem is clearly dependent upon more staff 
and additional resources. In our first report to you, v/e noted 
that while we recognized the need for econom.y and fiscal sense, 
some additional funding and additional investigator's positions 
v/ere critical to ultimate success to our goal and your mandate. 
This continues to be true, and accordingly, v/e have projected 
those positions in our fiscal 1979 Budget. 

■^^Section IV of this report v/ill deal briefly v;ith the nev; 
case processing techniques. The processes and guidelines 
therefore v/ere developed under the special ESOC grant more 
fully described in our first report. 



IV. NII\T£TY DAY STATISTICS FOR THE M0MTH5 OF JUI-H-:, JULY 
AUGUST 1977 

The follov/ing represents the comparative statistics for the 
second ninety day period as compared v;ith the same period durinr 
1976. 

COMPARATIVE SUIJ'I^RY 

JUNE - AUGUST 1976 
JUNE - AUGUST 1977 



A. IfEV/ COMPLAINTS RECEIVED 



JUNE 
JULY 
AUGUST 



1976 

163 
168 
176 
507 



JWIE 
JULY 
AUGUST 



1977 

192 
167 
186 



B. COMPL/iINTS CLOSED 



JUNE 
JULY 
AUGUST 



1976 

147 
223 
159 
529 



JUNE 
JULY 
AUGUST 



1977 

139* 

237 

266 



*Two week training session 
During this period, case inventory has been reduced by 97 
cases. 

Total reduction of inventory during tenure of full-time 
Commissioners to date - 311. 



JUNE 
JULY 
AUGUST 



MOIvETARY A^'/ARDS TO COMPLAINANTS 



1976 



4,861.40 
15,160.50 
10.687.00 
30,708.90 



JUTTE 
JULY 
AUGUST 



1977 



26,689.40 
13,093.55 
9,227.12 
49,010.07 



During this period monetary awards increased by '.,18,301.10 
Total increase of monetary av/ards during tenure - 70,170.20 



-6- 



V. CASE PROCESSING GUIDELIIsES 

In the first 90 day report, we discussed in some detail 

the special grant from the EEOC which we received and part of 

which we used to develop nev; case processing guidelines for use 

by this agency. The development of these techniques have been 

the result of an intense collective effort by us and by the 

Community Dispute Services of the American Arbitration 

Association, These efforts have resulted in the development 

of techniques for rapid charge case processing, guidelines 

related thereto, and in-depth training sessions for all HC/iD 

2/ 

staff in their use. On October 7, 1977, these techniques ' 
were put into practice and are part of present MCAD case proces 
sing. These techniques will continue in use for a trial period 
of some two months duration. Follov/ing this period, the workin 
draft of guidelines v;ill again be subjected to intense review 
and scrutiny by us. 

'/e fully expect that the use of these techniques v/ill 
permit MCAD to dispose of a complaint in or v;ithin 90 days from 
the date of filing. Of equal importance, it is our expectation 
that this tool will help to prevent this Commission from 
developing a further backlog of cases. In the most simple 
tenns, the nev; rapid charge case Drocessing techniques will be 
used on all nev; filed cases, so-called current cases, v/hile a 
special backlog team will devote its efforts to the so-called 
older or backlog cases. Thus, we look upon the rapid charge 
prccedur^es as not only a method to speed up all current case 

27 

A complete description of these guidelines and tecliniques are 

available at the offices of the Commission, upon request. 



processing but a preventive tool to deal v;ith backlog problems. 

VI. cor:iiis3iON'3 other related activities 

The following sections of this report v/ill deal with other 
activities which this Commission maintains in addition to the 
case investigative processes. It is important to outline, at 
least in part, these additional activities in order that the 
case processing sections and backlog efforts be shown in 
perspective to the Commission's entire operation. 

1. CASES CERTIFIED TO PUBLIC KEYRING 

As the backlog effort continues, a certain number of cases 
presently in the conciliation phase of case processing will be 
moved more rapidly to certified cases for public hearing. At 
least to some extent this movement represents a reduction of 
backlog cases. To be more specific, cases v/hich have lingered 
in the conciliation stage for too long a period of time, and which 
by virtue of the date of filing are regarded as backlog cases, 
v/ill be certified to public hearing v/hen a determination has 
been made that conciliation is either unsuccessful or unrealistic. 
Accordingly, the list of cases certified to public hearing should 
be increasing substantially during the months of August, September 
and October, 1977. To this end, the legal staff, and the office 
of the General Counsel, v/ill be responsible for developing a 
plan to deal efficiently and responsibly v:ith this secondary 
backlog. V7e expect and anticipate tv/o plans to evolve. The 
first will be a proposal for guidelines to deal v/ith the 
conciliation process itself. These guidelines v/ill include time 
frames, basic demands for different types of cases, scheduling of 

-8- 



! 



r 

I 



cases for conciliation efforts, and methods of techniques to be 
used during this case processing function. These items repre- 
sent only part of the topics to be covered in such guidelines. 
The second plan which we anticipate will evolve out of this 
effort will be some form of central litigation center wherein 
cases certified to public hearing v/ill be filtered, reviewed and 
put into a posture for dismissal, settlement or ultimate public 
hearing. Once again, we expect certain guidelines to be 
developed in order to dispose of this grov/ing mini-backlog of 
cases . 

2. RULSS OF PROCEDURE 

IXiring the backlog effort and the implementation of the 
Management Information System and case processing techniques 
developed by the Commission with the assistance of the Community 
Dispute Service Section of the American Arbitration Association, 
the Commission's Rules of Procedure have undergone constant 
review and modification. This reviev/ was primarily intended to 
bring our nev/ Rules into conformance v/ith the changes adopted by 
the Commission via the Management Information System and the case 
processing techniques and proposals suggested by CDS. This review 
has helped the agency to discover inconsistencies, problem areas 
and faults v/hich were not seen during the period when the 
Commission promulgated the Rules of Procedure in the first 
instance. Therefore, we anticipate that we v/ill be able to make 
substantially all of the necessary revisions in the Rules of 
Procedure contemporaneous with the implementation of our nev; case 
processing techniques and Management Information System. 



3. CREDIT GUIDELIINJES 

This Commission has taken a most active role in the 
development of Credit Guidelines vis-a-vis our state statute 
and the recently promulgated federal guidelines on credit. 
Very recently, changes were made at both levels and these 
changes and modifications were adopted by the Commission on 
September 1, 1977. A copy of the Commission's Credit Regulations 
is attached hereto as Exhibit A, 

4. FIELD OFFICES - SPRINGFIELD, WORCESTER, NEW BEDFORD 
Under the provisions of the full-time Commission bill, so- 
called, the legislature made provisions with respect to the 
formal establishment of field offices for the Commission Against 
Discrimination. In addition, the legislature provided and 
delegated to the appointed Commissioners regional responsibility 
with respect to these offices. This delegation has been followed 
by the present Commissioners, and, in addition, certain additional 
support services have been provided for these offices. 

In the Springfield office of the Commission Against 
Discrimination, we have developed a cadre of volunteers under 
the supervision of a senior field representative to assist in 
the case processing function carried on by this office. In 
addition, the full-time commissioner resident of the Springfield 
area has maintained a regular schedule of attendance and 
participation in this ..ffice to assist in its management and 
activities. This same commissioner has divided his time between 



-10- 



I 



Springfield and the 'worcester office. Certain difficulties in 
maintaining staff personnel in './orcester have precluded the 
Cormnission fror. developinp; the 'vorcester office as fully as 
Springfield. However, it is anticipated that with the hiring 
of new personnel on or about the first of October, 1977, this 
problem will be obviated and the '..'orcester office will be 
operating at full capacity shortly thereafter. In recent 
years , attrition in our legal department have resulted in 
spotty supervision of the New Bedford field office. During 
this second ninety day period, the Commission has placed on 
staff one additional attorney to be assigned the responsibility 
of supervision of the New Bedford office, together with the 
commissioner responsible for that operation. In addition to 
general supervision of the office, this staff person has been 
made responsible for the developm.ent of a volunteer staff to 
assist in the operation of the New Bedford office and the 
securing of some local members of the Bar to give a certain 
number of hours per week for the maintenance of this office. 
At the present time, there are two local New Bedford attorneys 
v/ho have volunteered a number of hour3 per week pro bono to the 
Commission Against Discrimination for assistance in the New 
Bedford office. It is expected that full implementation of a 
volunteer program will have taken place by the end of October, 
1977. 

5. EEOC FEDERAL GRAIsTT PROGRAII - 1977-1978 
On November 3Cl 1977, the present EEOC Grant Program to 
this agency will come to an end. It is important to reiterate 

-11- 



! 
i 



how valuable this grant has been to this agency. Beginning in 
1969, with a grant of less than C20,000. this grant has 
developed and expanded to more than J 200, 000. 09. r.s we noted 
in our first report to you, this grant is responsible and 
supports the entire legal division of the Massachusetts 
Commission Against Discrimination, as well as a large number of 
field representatives and support service personnel, 

v.^ith the appointment by the President of a new chair to 
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission the commissioners 
of IICi\D took the opportunity to travel to Washington en banc 
and meet v/ith Chairman Norton and her representatives. The 
purpose of this meeting v;as to lay the ground work for the 
negotiation of an even larger grant program. V.Tiile a 
substantial increase in funding may not occur during this 
contract period, v/e feel confident that the basis has been laid 
for substantial expansion of this grant and program during the 
1978-1979 period. However, we have not yet determined that we 
cannot secure some additional funding for the present fiscal 
period. During the second v/eek of September, 1977, this 
Commission's General Counsel began meeting v;ith EEOC representa- 
tives for the formulation of a new contract and further funding. 
The exact nature of the contract, the grant and the funding will 
be available in either an addendum to this report or in our next 
report to you. 

6. FIBLIC INFORJ'ATION 

i-.s part of the personnel cutback mandated by the Office of 
Administration and Finance during 1975-1976, the then constituted 
Commission opted to drop the position entitled "Public Information 

-12- 



Officer." \.*hile there was some concern that an agency this 
small did not require its ov.ti internal information officer, this 
Commission has felt the loss of this office and the staff person 
v/orking therefrom. Many of the major efforts of the Comjnission and 
the elem.ents of its reorganization require public notice, public 
hearing and exposure to both the complainants' and respondents' 
bar. This function, normally carried out by the I^iblic Information 
Officer, has been sorely missed. Accordingly, the commissioners 
three have individually and collectively assumed this function 
and have devoted large amounts of their personal and private time 
to radio, television, nev/spaper and other media appearances in 
order to carry out this function. It is estimated that the three 
- commissioners have had more than 50 personal appearances and/or 
interviews carried in the major media. These have included both 
of Boston's nev/spapers, two national magazines, most of Boston's 
local TV news programs and talk shows. Before the end of 
September, 1977, the commissioners v/ill meet en banc with a major 
cormnittee of the Boston Bar Association to discuss the implementa- 
tion of the Commission's Management Information System and case 
processing procedures. On balance, this exposure has been 
received very well and the audience most receptive. It has 
established an avenue of comjnunication wherein the Commission can 
respond to the needs of both the complainant and respondent bar 
alike. It is this Commission' ^ hope that this public image and 
public relations aspect will continue, however, vre intend to narrov^ 
the scope by meeting individually and collectively v/ith advocacy 
type groups rather than general exposure. During coming months, 

-13- 



v/e intend to be meeting with representatives of the Massachu - 
setts Law Reform Institute, the Committee for Civil Rights 
under the Law, other committees of the Boston and the 
Kassachusetts Bar Association, and those other groups that have 
vested interests in the multiple jurisdiction over which this 
agency has statutory authority. 
7. TH5 IInTTERN PR0GRAI>1 

From time to time over the past two or three years, this 
Commission has made some use of volunteers from the local law 
schools and colleges. These individuals have been placed in 
various volunteer functions v/ith the agency but, primarily in 
either the law department or as assistants in \7riting cases 
for the office of Field Operations. The success of these 
volunteers and legal intern programs has prompted this Commis- 
sion to make a concerted effort this fall to develp a broader- 
based program for each semester for the next tv/o years. We 
intend to prepare a plan for legal and non-legal interns to be 
culled from the various local law schools and colleges. This 
plan should be available v.dthin the next 10 days and implemen- 
tation thereof completed by the end of November, 1977. It is 
our expectation that we will attract as many as 20 volunteer legal 
and non-legal interns working for each semester, in the office of 
the Commission under the direction of two senior field representa- 
tives, who, in turn, v/ill be under the supervision of the Director 
of Investigations and the General Counsel. In consideration of 
their services, the Commission has provided and v;ill provide a 
detailed curriculum to the student's school as v/ell as supervision 

-14- 



and evaluation of the student assigned to the agency. Evalu- 
ations by the Commission will be .forv;arded to the student's 
school. In many instances volunteers are actually working 
for course credit, and, therefore, their work product has 
normally and generally been excentional 

8. feder.-x/st;.tf. civil rights rsviev; 

During the past ninety days, the division staff initiated 
the implementation of the grant reviev; program for state and 
federal grants in fulfilling the HUD grant contract entered into 
during the previous quarter. Start-up administrative activity, 
such as the recruitment and hiring of personnel; staff training 
and development of program objectives were accomplished. 
Additionally, the following activities were achieved during the 
90 day time span: 

a. Standard operating procedures for A-95 review were 
developed. 

b. Draft affirmative action guidelines for housing and 
employment have been developed. 

c. Initial program development for review of state grant 
projects v;ere developed v'ith the Executive Office of Environmental 
;-.ff£.irs. 

d. ''car final drafts of department of Community Affairs 
Affirmative Actinn guidelines have been negotiated and will be 
the subject of public hearings v;ithin the next U3 days. 

e. Memoranda of Agreements with a significant number of 
cities and tov;ns have been entered into, follovring negotiations. 
These Temoranda of Agreements include, for tlie first tine, the 

-15- 



requirement for the development of affirmative fair housing 
programs by cities and tov.Tis, 

f. A training conference for cities and tov.Tis to direct 
them in the reviev; methods and operations of the Commission v/as 
held in June. Approximately 50 cities and tov.Tis attended 

the conference along v;ith representatives from certain state 
organizations. 3eyond providing technical assistance and 
information v.^ith respect to recent program developments by 
the federal Office of Revenue Sharing. 

g. Civil Rights Reviev; - a number of reviews were con- 
ducted under the >i-95 review process of cities' and tov/ns' 
applications. Additional follov/-up occurred on comments made 
during the previous quarter, such as the City of Boston's 
Community Development Block Grant Application. The commissioners 
met v/ith the Secretary of HUD, as well as a number of other federal 
officials, with respect to issues raised in that report in an 
attempt to effect solutions to those issues. 

9. GEIv^AL COMi-ErTTS 

'.■.Tiile a portion of the initial three months time span was 
devoted to program initiation and developments of advisory 
guidelines, this next quarter, of September through November, v/ill 
provide the first real test of full implementation of the 
programs. It is anticipated that large numbers of communities 
v;ill come into compliance with the Commission through the 
development of I'emoranda of Agreements by the development of 
affirmative action programs in the area of internal public 
employment, contract compliance, and housing. 

-16- 



10. PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT COMPLAINT ACTIVITY 

Two field investigators are assl^ed to the division to 
conduct investigation of complaints filed against public sector 
employers at the state, county and local level. During this 
time approximately 3^ public sector cases were completed by the 
two field investigators. Additionally, liaison work began with 
the newly appointed State Director of Affirmative Action in 
integrating elements of that office's programs into both the 
Commission complaint procedure and to the civil rights review 
procedure under A-95 state reviews. 

11 . CONTRACT COMPLIANCE 

Renewed attention with respect to the enforcement of the 
contract compliance program was initiated. The Commission 
formed a Construction Task Force, consisting of Commission and 
other public agency members who are involved or impact the 
issue of minority and female employment in the construction 
industry. Initial progress in this area included assistance 
in the development of proposed contract language for use by 
state agencies (and local government) on the Part II, Public 
Works Program. Additionally, the Commissioner of Labor and 
Industries will be issuing an official ruling on the ability 
of state, city and town entities to fulfill their Economic 
Development Administration . requirements within the framework 
of certain state bid statutes. 

The Commission has also completed a redraft of the proposed 
public hearing guidelines for initiation of formal non-compliance 
proceedings against state contractors who appear to have failed 
to meet numerical hiring goals. Preliminary activity is prepared 



with respect to hearings of those complaints within the next 
thirty days. 

1 2 . FEDEPtAL OFFICE OF REVKNUK SHARING 

The Commission continued to assist local cities and towns 
in developing their response to the findings, or investigations, 
by the Federal Office of Revenue Sharing of allegations of 
discrimination under the act. As an example, the Corrjnission 
was able to negotiate a Memorandum of Agreement with the City 
of Melfrose which allowed the Office of Revenue Sharing to close 
the case, absent a formal finding of discrimination, but providing 
a specific remedy as required. 

13. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY 

The creation of a full-time commission has allowed us to 
institute certain management changes. The present Chairman 
serves as the chief administrative officer and carries out 
the administrative functions formerly performed by the director 
of administration . The position of executive secretary, 
created at the inception of the MCAD was occupied by one person 
until his resignation in 1976. From 1976 until September 1977, 
the executive secretary's position was vacant. With both the 
position of Executive Secretary and Director of Administration 
vacant, we made a careful study of both positions, the salaries, 
Job descriptions, and the Agency's needs with respect to 
administrative function. We determined to fill the position 

7 __ 

The individual holding this position was brought to MCAD by 
the former chairman under an IPA transfer with the Department 
of Housing and Urban Development absorbing almost 50% of his 
salary. By mutual agreement, the IPA transfer terminated on 
the 30th of June, 1977, and the person holding the position 
returned to his post at HUD in San Francisco, California. 



-18- 



of Executive Secretary and began immediately a long and hard 
search for the best qualified person to fill this post. \Ie 
screened more than 35 applications and interviev/ed approximately 
10 candidates, four of whom were finalists. On or about the 
first of September, 1977, the Commissioners unanimously 
selected Ms. Virginia Parks for the post of Executive Secretary, 

V.^ith the Executive Secretary in place, the Commissioners 
now have more available time to carry out the policy making and 
quasi- judicial functions of the Agency. 



-19- 



REGULATIONS CONCERNING DISCRIMINATION IN CREDIT 



Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 30A, Section 2(3), 
the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination has found 
that immediate adoption of these amendments is necessary for the 
preservation of the general welfare. Therefore, observation of 
the requirements of notice and public hearing prior to their 
effective date would be contrary to the public interest. 

SECTION 1. AUTHORITY, SCOPE, ENFORCEMENT, FEDERAL 

INTERPRETATIONS, EFFECTIVE DATE. 

(a) Authority and Scope . This Regulation comprises the 
regulations issued by the Massachusetts Commission Against Dis- 
crimination pursuant to §3(5) of Chapter 151B of the General Laws. 
This Regulation implements the following provisions of Massachusetts 
statutory law: §§4(3B), 4(10), 4(14) and 5 of Chapter 151B of 

the General Laws and §98 of Chapter 272 of the General Laws (the 
foregoing statutory provisions are referred to herein collectively 
as the "Credit Discrimination Statutes"). Except as otherwise 
provided herein, this Regulation applies to all persons who are 
creditors, as defined in §2(m). 

(b) Administrative Enforcement . Compliance with the 
requirements imposed under the Credit Discrimination Statutes and 
this Regulation shall be enforced by the Commission. 

(c) Interpretations by the Board of Governors . The 
Commission takes note of the fact that this Regulation is similar 
in scope and terminology to Regulation of the Board of Governors 
of the Federal Reserve System. Because of the substantive 
similarities between many of the provisions of this Regulation 

and the comparable provisions of Regulation B, the Commission has 
established the procedure specified below in this §l(c) regarding 
the effect to be given by the Commission to official Board 
interpretations and official staff interpretations^ which are 
issued under Regulation B by the Board or by a duly authorized 
official of the Board. 

Each official Board interpretation and official staff 
interpretation, whether issued prior to, on or subsequent to the 
date of this Regulation, that interprets a provision of Regulation B 
that is similar in substance to a provision of this Regulation 
shall, until rescinded by the Board, be deemed by the Commission 



1 12 CFR 202. 

2 See the description of "official Board interpretations" and 
"official staff interpretations" appearing at §202. 1(d) of 
Regulation B. 



I 



to be an advisory ruling issued by the Commission under §8 of 
Chapter 30A of the General Laws. If the Commission determines 
that any official Board interpretation or official staff inter- 
pretation that is deemed to be an advisory ruling is contrary to 
the purposes or meaning of any of the Credit Discrimination 
Statutes, the Commission shall commence an amendment process 
under §2 of Chapter 30A of the General Laws to amend the pro- 
visions of this Regulation that were interpreted by the applica- 
ble official Board Interpretation or official staff interpreta- 
tion. 

If any provision of Regulation B is amended by the 
Board and the provision so amended is similar in substance to a 
provision of this Regulation, the Commission shall, as soon as 
practicable after the Board's promulgation of the amendment, 
commence an amendment process under §2 of Chapter 30A of the 
General Laws with a view toward determining if the provisions of 
the Credit Discrimination Statutes would be supported by the 
adoption of a similar amendment to this Regulation. 

(d) Interpretation . This Regulation shall be interpreted 
in a manner consistent with the Federal Equal Credit Opportunity 
Act and Regulation B as they may from time to time be interpreted 
or amended. 

(e) Severability ♦ The provisions of this Regulation are 
severable, and the fact that any provision is found to be invalid 
for any reason shall not affect the validity of any other pro- 
vision. 

(f) Effective Date . Unless otherwise stated, this Regulation 
shall be effective with respect to all transactions occurring on 

or after June 1, 1977. 

(g) Repeal of Existing Regulations . This Regulation hereby 
repeals the COMMISSION'S REGULATIONS CONCERNING DISCRIMINATION IN 
CREDIT BECAUSE OF SEX OR MARITAL STATUS, effective date January 
31, 1975, as amended August 1, 1975. 



SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS AND RULES OF CONSTRUCTION. 

For the purposes of this Regulation, unless the context 
indicates otherwise, the following definitions and rules of 
construction shall apply. 

(a) Account means an extension of credit. When employed in 
relation to an account, the word use refers only to open end 
credit . 



i 



(b) Adverse action . (1) For the purposes of notification 
of action taken, statement of reasons for denial, and record 
retention, the term means: 

(1) a refusal to grant credit in substantially 
the amount or on substantially the terms requested by 
an applicant unless the creditor offers to grant 
credit other than in substantially the amount or on 
substantially the terms requested by the applicant and 
the applicant uses or expressly accepts the credit 
offered; or 

(ii) a termination of an account or an unfavorable 
change in the terms of an account that does not affect 
all or a substantial portion of a classification of a 
creditor's accounts; or 

(iii) a refusal to increase the amount of credit 
available to an applicant when the applicant requests 
an increase in accordance with procedures established 
by the creditor for the type of credit involved. 

(2) The term does not include: 

(i) a change in the terms of an account expressly 
agreed to by an applicant; or 

(ii) any action or forbearance relating to an 
account taken in connection with inactivity, default, 
or delinquency as to that account; or 

(iii) a refusal to extend credit at a point of 
sale or loan in connection with the use of an account 
because the credit requested would exceed a previously 
established credit limit on the account; or 

(iv) a refusal to extend credit because applicable 
law prohibits the creditor from extending the credit 
requested; or 

(v) a refusal to extend credit because the 
creditor does not offer the type of credit or credit 
plan requested. 

(c) Age refers only to natural persons and means the 
number of fully elapsed years from the date of an applicant's 
birth. 



-3- 



I 



(d) Applicant refers only to natural persons and means any 
such natural person who either requests or has received, within 
the Commonwealth, an extension of credit from a creditor, and 
includes any such natural person who is or may be contractually 
liable regarding an extension of credit other than a guarantor, 
surety, endorser, or similar party. 

(e) Application means an oral or written request for an 
extension of credit that is made in accordance with procedures 
established by a creditor for the type of credit requested. The 
term does not include the use of an account or line of credit to 
obtain an amount of credit that does not exceed a previously 
established credit limit. A completed application for credit 
means an application in connection with which a creditor has 
received all the information that the creditor regularly obtains 
and considers in evaluating applications for the amount and type 
of credit requested (including, but not limited to, credit 
reports, any additional information requested from the applicant, 
and any approvals or reports by governmental agencies or other 
persons that are necessary to guarantee, insure, or provide 
security for the credit or collateral); provided, however, that 
the creditor has exercised reasonable diligence in obtaining such 
information. Where an application is incomplete respecting 
matters that the applicant can complete, a creditor shall make a 
reasonable effort to notify the applicant of the incompleteness 
and shall allow the applicant a reasonable opportunity to complete 
the application. 

(f) Board means the Board of Governors of the Federal 
Reserve System. 

(g) Commission means the Massachusetts Commission Against 
Discrimination. 

(h) Consumer credit means credit extended to a natural 
person in which the money, property, or service that is the 
subject of the transaction is primarily for personal, family, or 
household purposes. 

(i) Contractually liable means expressly obligated to repay 
all debts arising on an account by reason of an agreement to that 
effect. 

( j ) Credit means the right granted by a creditor to an 
applicant to defer payment of a debt, incur debt and defer its 
payment, or purchase property or services and defer payment 
therefor . 

(k) Credit card means any card, plate, coupon book, or 
other single credit device existing for the purpose of being 



-4- 



I 



used from time to time upon presentation to obtain money, prop- 
erty, or services on credit. 

(1) Credit Discrimination Statutes means the following 
provisions of the General Laws: §§4(3B) , 4(10), 4(14) and 5 of 
Chapter 151B and §98 of Chapter 272. 

(m) Creditor means a person, including, but not limited to, 
banks, trust companies, licensed lenders, mortgage lenders, 
savings and loan associations, credit unions, credit card issuers, 
utility companies, finance companies, wholesale and retail merchants, 
and educational institutions, who, in the ordinary course of 
business regularly participates in the decision of whether or not 
to extend credit. The term includes an assignee, transferee, or 
subrogee of an original creditor who so participates; but an 
assignee, transferee, subrogee, or other creditor is not a creditor 
regarding any violation of any Credit Discrimination Statute or 
this Regulation committed by the original or another creditor 
unless the assignee, transferee, subrogee, or other creditor knew 
or had reasonable notice of the act, policy, or practice that 
constituted the violation before its involvement with the credit 
transaction. The term does not include a person whose only 
participation in a credit transaction involves honoring a credit 
card. 



(n) Credit transaction means every aspect of an applicant's 
dealings with a creditor regarding an application for, or an 
existing extension of, credit including, but not limited to, 
information requirements; investigation procedures; standards of 
creditworthiness; terms of credit; furnishing of credit informa- 
tion; revocation, alteration, or termination of credit; and 
collection procedures. 

(o) Discriminate against an applicant means to treat an 
applicant less favorably than other applicants. 

(p) Elderly means* an age of 62 or older. 

(q) Empirically derived credit system . (1) The term means 
a credit scoring system that evaluates an applicant's credit- 
worthiness primarily by allocating points (or by using a com- 
parable basis for assigning weights) to key attributes describing 
the applicant and other aspects of the transaction. In such a 
system, the points (or weights) assigned to each attribute, and 
hence the entire score: 



(i) are derived from an empirical comparison of 
sample groups or the population of creditworthy and 
non-creditworthy applicants of a creditor who applied 



-5- 



i 



for credit within a reasonable preceding period of 
time; and 

(11) determine, alone or In conjunction with an 
evaluation of additional Information about the appli- 
cant, whether an applicant Is deemed creditworthy. 

( 2 ) A demonstrably and statistically sound, empirically 
derived credit system Is a system: 

(1) In which the data used to develop the 
system, if not the complete population consisting of 
all applicants, are obtained from the applicant file 
by using appropriate sampling principles; 

(11) which is developed for the purpose of predicting 
the creditworthiness of applicants with respect to the 
legitimate business interests of the creditor utilizing 
the system, including, but not limited to, minimizing 
bad debt losses and operating expenses in accordance 
with the creditor's business judgment; 

(ill) which, upon validation using appropriate 
statistical principles, separates creditworthy and 
non-creditworthy applicants at a statistically sig- 
nificant rate; and 

(iv) which is periodically revalidated as to its 
predictive ability by the use of app.^'opriate statis- 
tical principles and is adjusted as necessary to 
maintain its predictive ability. 

(3) A creditor may use a demonstrably and statis- 
tically sound, empirically derived credit system obtained from 
another person or may obtain credit experience from which such a 
system may be developed. Any such system must satisfy the tests 
set forth in subsections (1) and (2); provided that, if a 
creditor is unable during the development process to validate 
the system based on its own credit experience in accordance with 
subsection (2) (ill), then the system must be validated when 
sufficient credit experience becomes available. A system that 
fails this validity test shall henceforth be deemed not to be a 
demonstrably and statistically sound, empirically derived credit 
system for that creditor. 

(r) Extend credit and extension of credit mean the granting 
of credit in any form and include, but are not limited to, 
credit granted in addition to any existing credit or credit 
limit; credit granted pursuant to an open end credit plan; the 
refinancing or other renewal of credit, including the Issuance 



-6- 



of a new credit card in place of an expiring credit card or In 
substitution for an existing credit card; the consolidation of 
two or more obligations or the continuance of existing credit 
without any special effort to collect at or after maturity. 

(s) Good faith means honesty in fact in the conduct or 
transaction. 

(t) I nadvertent error means a mechanical, electronic, or 
clerical error that a creditor demonstrates was not intentional 
and occurred notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures 
reasonably adapted to avoid any such error. 

(u) J udgmental system of evaluating applicants means any 
system for evaluating the creditworthiness of an applicant other 
than a demonstrably and statistically sound, empirically derived 
credit system. 

(v) Marital status means the state of being unmarried, 
married, or separated, as defined by applicable State law. For 
the purposes of this Regulation the term "unmarried" includes 
persons who are single, divorced, or widowed. 

(w) Negative factor or value , in relation to the age of 
elderly applicants, means utilizing a factor, value, or weight 
that is less favorable regarding elderly applicants than the 
creditor's experience warrants or is less favorable than the 
factor, value, or weight assigned to the class of applicants 
that are not classified as elderly applicants and are most 
favored by a creditor on the basis of age. 

(x) Open end credit means credit extended pursuant to a 
plan under which a creditor may permit an applicant to make 
purchases or obtain loans from time to time directly from the 
creditor or indirectly by use of a credit card, check, or other 
device as the plan may provide. The term does not include 
negotiated advances under an open end real estate mortgage or a 
letter of credit. 

(y) P erson means a natural person, corporation, government 
or governmental subdivision or agency, trust, estate, partner- 
ship, cooperative, or association. 

(z) Pertinent element of creditworthiness , in relation to 
a judgmental system of evaluating applicants, means any informa- 
tion about applicants that a creditor obtains and considers and 
that has a demonstrable relationship to a determination of 
creditworthiness . 

(aa) Prohibited basis means race, color, religion, national 
origin, sex, marital status, or age (provided that the applicant 
has the capacity to enter into a binding contract); or the fact 



-7- 



that all or part of the apDlicant's income derives from any 
public assistance program. ^ 

(bb) Public assistance prop;ram means any Federal, State, or 
local governmental assistance program that provides a continuing, 
periodic income supplement, whether premised on entitlement or 
need. The term includes, but is not limited to. Aid to Families 
with Dependent Children, food stamps, rent and mortgage supple- 
ment or assistance programs. Social Security and Supplemental 
Security Income, medical assistance, and unemployment compensa- 
tion. 

(cc) State means any State, the District of Columbia, the 
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territory or possession of 
the United States. 

(dd) Captions and catchlines are intended solely as aids to 
convenient reference, and no inference as to the substance of any 
provision of this Regulation may be drawn from them. 

(ee) Footnotes shall have the same legal effect as the text 
of this Regulation, whether they are explanatory or illustrative 
in nature. 



3 The first clause of the definition is not limited to charac- 
teristics of the applicant. Therefore, "prohibited basis" 
as used in this Regulation refers not only to the race, 
color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, or 
age of an applicant, but refers also to the characteristics 
of individuals with whom an applicant deals. This means, 
for example, that, under the general rule stated in section 
4, a creditor may not discriminate against a non-Jewish 
applicant because of that person's business dealings with 
Jews, or discriminate against an applicant because of the 
characteristics of persons to whom the extension of credit 
relates (e.g., the prospective tenants In an apartment 
complex to be constructed with the proceeds of the credit 
requested), or because of the characteristics of other 
inc''ividuals residing in the neighborhood where the property 
offered as collateral is located. A creditor may take into 
account, however, any applicable law, regulation, or execu- 
tive order, restricting dealings with citizens or governments 
of other countries or imposing limitations regarding credit 
extended for their use. 

The second clause is limited to an applicant's receipt 
of public assistance income. 



-8- 



SECTION 3. SPECIAL TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN CLASSES OF TRANS- 

ACTIONS. 

(a) Classes of transactions afforded special treatment . 
The following classes of transactions are afforded specialized 
treatment : 

(1) extensions of credit relating to transactions 
under public utility tariffs involving services provided through 
pipe, wire, or other connected facilities if the charges for 
such public utility services, the charges for delayed payment, 
and any discount allowed for early payment are filed with, or 
reviewed or regulated by, an agency of the Federal government, a 
State, or a political subdivision thereof; 

(2) extensions of credit subject to regulation under 
section 7 of the Securities Exchange Act of 193^ or extensions 
of credit by a broker or dealer subject to regulation as a 
broker or dealer under the Securities Exchange Act of 193^; 

(3) extensions of incidental consumer credit, other 
than of the types described in subsections (a)(1) and (2): 

(i) that are not made pursuant to the terms of a 
credit card account; 

(ii) on which no finance charge as defined in 
section 1 of Chapter l^OC of the General Laws is or 
may be imposed; and 

(iii) that are not payable by agreement in more 
than four instalments; and 

(^) extensions of credit primarily for business or 
commercial purposes, including extensions of credit primarily 
for agricultural purposes, but excluding extensions of credit of 
the types described in subsections (a)(1) and (2). 

(b) Public utilities credit . The following provisions of 
this Regulation shall not apply to extensions of credit of the 
type described in subsection (a)(1): 

(1) section 5(d)(1) concerning inform.ation about 
marital status; 

(2) section 10 relating to furnishing of credit 
information; and 



-9- 



(3) section 12(b) relating to record retention. 



(c) Securities credit . The following provisions of this 
Regulation shall not apply to extensions of credit of the type 
described in subsection (a)(2): 

(1) section 5(c) concerning information about a 
spouse or former spouse; 

(2) section 5(d)(1) concerning information about 
marital status; 

(3) section 5(d)(3) concerning information about the 
sex of an applicant; 

(4) section 7(b) relating to designation of name, but 
only to the extent necessary to prevent violation of rules 
regarding an account in which a broker or dealer has an interest, 
or rules necessitating the aggregation of accounts of spouses 
for the purpose of determining controlling interests, beneficial 
interests, beneficial ownership, or purchase limitations and 
restrictions ; 

(5) section 7(c) relating to action concerning open 
end accounts, but only to the extent the action taken is on the 
basis of a change of name or marital status; 

(6) section 7(d) relating to signature of a spouse or 
other person; 

(7) section 10 relating to furnishing of credit 
information; and 

(8) section 12(b) relating to record retention. 

(d) Incidental credit . The following provisions of this 
Regulation shall not apply to extensions of credit of the type 
described in subsection (a)(3): 

(1) section 5(c) concerning information about a spouse 
or former spouse; 

(2) section 5(d)(1) concerning information about 
mar i Ml status; 

(3) section 5(d)(2) concerning information about 
income derived from alimony, child support, or separate main- 
tenance payments; 



-10- 



(4) section 5(d)(3) concerning Information about thi^ 
sex of an applicant to the extent necessary for medical records 
or similar purposes; 

(5) section 7(d) relating to signature of a spouse or 
other person; 

(6) section 9 relating to notifications; 

(7) section 10 relating to furnishing of credit 
information; and 

(8) section 12(b) relating to record retention. 

(e) Business credit . The following provisions of this 
Regulation shall not apply to extensions of credit of the type 
described in subsection (a)(4): 

(1) section 5(d)(1) concerning information about 
marital status; 

(2) section 9 relating to notifications, unless an 
applicant, within 30 days after oral or written notification 
that adverse action has been taken, requests in writing the 
reasons for such action; 

(3) section 10 relating to furnishing of credit 
information; and 

(4) section 12(b) relating to record retention, 
unless an applicant, within 90 days after adverse action has 
been taken, requests in writing that the records relating to the 
application be retained. 



SECTION 4. GENERAL RULE PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION. 

A creditor shall not discriminate against an applicant on a 
prohibited basis regarding any aspect of a credit transaction. 



SECTION 5. RULES CONCERNING APPLICATIONS. 

(a) Discouraging applications . A creditor shall not make 
any oral or written statement. In advertising or otherwise, to 
applicants or prospective applicants that would discourage on a 
prohibited basis a reasonable person from making or pursuing an 
application. 



-11- 



(b ) General rules concerning requests for Information . 

(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a creditor may 
request any information in connection with an application.^ 

(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
section, a creditor shall request an applicant's race/national 
origin, sex, and marital status as required in section 13 of 
Regulation B (information for monitoring purposes). In addition, 
a creditor may obtain such information as may be required by a 
regulation, order, or agreement issued by, or entered into with, 
a court or an enforcement agency (including the Attorney General 
of the United States or a similar State official) to monitor or 
enforce compliance with any Credit Discrimination Statute, this 
Regulation, or other Federal or State statute or regulation. 

(3) The provisions of this section limiting permis- 
sible information requests are subject to the provisions of 
section 7(e) regarding insurance and sections 8(c) and (d) 
regarding special purpose credit programs. 

(c) Information about a spouse or former spouse . (1) Except 
as permitted in this subsection, a creditor may not request any 
information concerning the spouse or former spouse of an applicant 

(2) A creditor may request any information concerning 
an applicant's spouse (or former spouse under (v) below) that may 
be requested about the applicant if: 

(1) the spouse will be permitted to use the 
account; or 

(ii) the spouse will be contractually liable upon 
the account; or 

(iii) the applicant is relying on the spouse's 
income as a basis for repayment of the credit requested; or 



4 This subsection is not intended to limit or abrogate any 
Massachusetts or other law regarding privacy, privileged 
information, credit reporting limitations, or similar re- 
strictions on obtainable information. Furthermore, per- 
mission to request information should not be confused with 
how it may be utilized, which is governed by section 6 
(rules concerning evaluation of applications). 



-12- 



I 



(Iv) the applicant resides in a community property 
State or property upon which the applicant is relying as a 
basis for repayment of the credit requested is located in 
such a State; or 

(v) the applicant is relying on alimony, child 
support, or separate maintenance payments from a spouse or 
former spouse as a basis for repayment of the credit requested. 

(3) A creditor may request an applicant to list any 
account upon which the applicant is liable and to provide the 
name and address in which such account is carried. A creditor 
may also ask the names in which an applicant has previously 
received credit. 

(d) Information a ci'editor may not request . (1) If an 
applicant applies for an individual, unsecured account, a creditor 
shall not request the applicant's marital status, unless the 
applicant resides in a community property State or property upon 
which the applicant is relying as a basis for repayment of the 
credit requested is located in such a State."* Where an appli- 
cation is for other than individual, unsecured credit, a creditor 
may request an applicant's marital status. Only the terms "married," 
"unmarried," and "separated" shall be used, and a creditor may 
explain tnat the category "unmarried" includes single, divorced, 
and widowed persons. 

(2) A creditor shall not inquire whether any income 
stated in an application is derived from alimony, child support, 
or separate maintenance payments, unless the creditor appro- 
priately discloses to the applicant that such income need not be 



5 This provision does not preclude requesting relevant infor- 
mation that may indirectly disclose marital status, such as 
asking about liability to pay alimony, child support, or 
separate maintenance; the source of income to be used as a 
basis for the repayment of the credit requested, which may 
disclose that it is a spouse's income; whether any obliga- 
tion disclosed by the applicant has a co-obligor, which may 
disclose that the co-obligor is a spouse or former spouse; 
or the ownership of assets, which may disclose the interest 
of a spouse, when such assets are relied upon in extending 
the credit. Such inquiries are allowed by the general rule 
of subsection (b)(1). 



-13- 



revealed if the applicant does not desire the creditor to con- 
sider such income in determining the applicant's creditworthi- 
ness. Since a general inquiry about income, without further 
specification, may lead an applicant to list alimony, child 
support, or separate maintenance payments, a creditor shall 
provide an appropriate notice to an applicant before inquiring 
about the source of an applicant's income, unless the terms of 
the inquiry (such as an inquiry about salary, wages, investment 
income, or similarly specified income) tend to preclude the 
unintentional disclosure of alimony, child support, or separate 
maintenance payments. 

(3) A creditor shall not request the sex of an appli- 
cant. An applicant may be requested to designate a title on an 
application form (such as Ms., Miss, Mr., or Mrs.) if the form 
appropriately discloses that the designation of such a title is 
optional. An application form shall otherwise use only terms 
that are neutral as to sex. 

(4) A creditor shall not request information about 
birth control practices, intentions concerning the bearing or 
rearing of children, or capability to bear children. This does 
not preclude a creditor from inquiring about the number and ages 
of an applicant's dependents or about dependent-related financial 
obligations or expenditures, provided such information is reques- 
ted without regard to sex, marital status, or any other prohi- 
bited basis. 

(5) A creditor shall not request the race, color, 
religion, or national origin of an applicant or any other person 
in connection with a credit transaction. A creditor may inquire, 
however, as to an applicant's permanent residence and immigration 
status . 

(e) Application forms . A creditor need not use written 
applications. If accreditor chooses to use written forms, it 
may design its own, use forms prepared by another person, or 
use the appropriate model application forms contained in 
Appendix B to Regulation B. If a creditor chooses to use an 
Appendix B form, it may change the form: 



S A creditor also may continue to use any application form 
that complies with the requirements of prior Regulations 
of the Commission concerning credit discrimination until 
its present stock of those forms is exhausted or until 
March 23, 1978, whichever occurs first. 



-IM- 



(1) by asking for additional information not pro- 
hibited by this section; 

(2) by deleting any information request; or 

(3) by rearranging the format without modifying the 
substance of the inquiries; provided that in each of these three 
instances the appropriate notices regarding the optional nature 
of courtesy titles, the option to disclose alimony, child sup- 
port, or separate maintenance, and the limitation concerning 
marital status inquiries are included in the appropriate places 
if the items to which they relate appear on the creditor's form. 
If a creditor uses an appropriate Appendix B model form or to the 
extent that it modifies such a form in accordance with the 
provisions of clauses (2) or (3) of the preceding sentence or the 
instructions to Appendix B, that creditor shall be deemed to be 
acting in compliance with the provisions of subsections (c) and 
(d). 



SECTION 6. RULES CONCERNING EVALUATION OF APPLICATIONS. 

(a) General rule concerning use of information . Except as 
otherwise provided in this Regulation, a creditor may consider in 
evaluating an application any information that the creditor 
obtains, so long as the information is not used to discriminate 
against an applicant on a prohibited basis.' 

(b) Specific rules concerning use of information . (1) Except 
as provided in this Regulation a creditor shall not take a prohi- 
bited basis into account in any system of evaluating the credit- 
worthiness of applicants." 

(2)(i) Except as permitted in this subsection, a 
creditor shall not take into account an applicant's age 
(provided that the applicant has the capacity to enter into 
a binding contract) or whether an applicant's income derives 
from any public assistance program. 



7 The Commission intends this Regulation to be interpreted 
in light of the Supreme Judicial Court's opinion in 
Wheelock C ol lege v. Mas sachusetts Commission Against 
Discrimination , 1976 Mass. Adv. Sh. 233^ • ' 

B This provision does not prevent a creditor from considering 
the marital status of an applicant or the source of an 
applicant's income for the purpose of ascertaining the 
creditor's rights and remedies, applicable to the particular 
extension of credit and not to discriminate in a determina- 
tion of creditworthiness. Furthermore, a prohibited basis 
may be considered in accordance with section 8 (special 
purpose credit programs). 



(il) In a demonstrably and statistically sound, 
empirically derived credit system, a creditor may use an 
applicant's age as a predictive variable, provided that the 
age of an elderly applicant is not assigned a negative 
factor or value. 

(iii) In a judgmental system of evaluating credit- 
worthiness, a creditor may consider an applicant's age or 
whether an applicant's income derives from any public 
assistance program only for the purpose of determining a 
pertinent element of creditworthiness . 9 

(iv) In any system of evaluating creditworthiness, 
a creditor may consider the age of an elderly applicant when 
such age is to be used to favor the elderly applicant in 
extending credit. 



Concerning income derived from a public assistance program, 
a creditor may consider, for example, the length of time an 
applicant has been receiving such income; whether an applicant 
intends to continue to reside in the jurisdiction in 
relation to residency requirements for benefits; and the 
status of an applicant's dependents to ascertain whether 
benefits that the applicant is presently receiving will 
continue . 

Concerning age, a creditor may consider, for example, 
the occupation and length of time to retirement of an 
applicant to ascertain whether the applicant's income 
(including retirement income, as applicable) will support 
the extension of credit until its maturity; or the adequacy 
of any security offered if the duration of the credit 
extension will exceed the life expectancy of the applicant. 
An elderly applicant might not qualify for a five-percent 
down, 30-year mortgage loan because the duration of the 
loan exceeds the applicant's life expectancy and the cost 
of realizing on the collateral might exceed the applicant's 
equity. The same applicant might qualify with a larger 
downpayment and a shorter loan maturity. A creditor could 
also consider an applicant's age, for example, to assess 
the significance of the applicant's length of employment or 
residence (a young applicant may have just entered the job 
market; an elderly applicant may recently have retired and 
moved from a long-time residence). 



-16- 



(3) A creditor shall not use, in evaluating the 
creditworthiness of an applicant, assumptions or aggregate 
statistics relating to the likelihood that any group of persons 
will bear or rear children or, for that reaso!^, will receive 
diminished or interrupted income in the future. 

(^) A creditor shall not take into account the exis- 
tence of a telephone listing in the name of an applicant for 
consumer credit. A creditor may take into account the existence 
of a telephone in the residence of such an applicant. 

(5) A creditor shall not discount or exclude from 
consideration the income of an applicant or the spouse of the 
applicant because of a prohibited basis or because the income is 
derived from part-time employment, or from an annuity, pension, 
or other retirement benefit; but a creditor may consider the 
amount and probable continuance of any income in evaluating an 
applicant's creditworthiness. V/here an applicant relies on 
alimony, child support, or separate maintenance payments in 
applying for credit, a creditor shall consider such payment-^ as 
income to the extent that they are likely to be consistently 
made. Factors that a creditor may consider in determining the 
likelihood of consistent payments include, but are not limited 
to, whether the payments are received pursuant to a written 
agreement or court decree; the length of time that the payments 
have been received; the regularity of receipt; the availability 
of procedures to compel payment; and the creditworthiness of the 
payor, including the credit history of the payor where available 
to the creditor under the Massachusetts Fair Credit Reporting Act 
or other applicable laws.-*-^ 

(6) To the extent that a creditor considers credit 
history in evaluating the creditworthiness of similarly qualified 
applicants for a similar type and amount of credit, in evaluating 
an applicant's creditworthiness, a creditor shall consider 
(unless the failure to consider results from an inadvertent 
error ) : 

(i) the credit history, when available, of 
accounts designated as accounts that the applic ^nt is 
permitted to use or for which the applicant is con- 
tractually liable; 

(ii) on the applicant's request, any information 
that the applicant may present tending to indicate that the 
credit history being considered by the creditor does not 
accurately reflect the applicant's creditworthiness; and 

To Sections 50 through 68 of Chapter 93 of the General 
Laws . 



-17- 



(iil) on the applicant's request, the credit 
history, when available, of any account reported in the name 
of a person other than the applicant or the applicant's 
parent or guardian that the applicant can demonstrate 
accurately reflects the applicant's creditworthiness. 

(7) A creditor may consider whether an applicant is a 
permanent resident of the United States, the applicant's immigra- 
tion status, and such additional information as may be necessary 
to ascertain its rights and remedies regarding repayment. 

(c) State property laws . A creditor's consideration or 

application of State property laws directly or indirectly affect- 
ing creditworthiness shall not constitute unlawful discrimination 
for the purposes of the Credit Discrimination Statutes or this 
Regulation. 



SECTION 7. RULES CONCERNING EXTENSIONS OF CREDIT. 

(a) Individual accounts . A creditor shall not refuse to 
grant an individual account to a creditworthy applicant on the 
basis of sex, marital status, or any other prohibited basis. 

(b) Designation of name . A creditor shall not prohibit an 
applicant from opening or maintaining an account in a birth-given 
first name and a surname that is the applicant's birth-given 
surname, the spouse's surname, or a combined surname. 

(c) Action concerning existing open end accounts . (1) In 
the absence of evidence of inability or unwillingness to repay, a 
creditor shall not take any of the following actions regarding an 
applicant who is contractually liable on an existing open end 
account on the basis of the applicant's reaching a certain age or 
retiring, or on the basis of a change in the applicant's name or 
marital status: 

(i) require a reapplication; or 

(ii) change the terms of the account; or 

(iii) terminate the account. 

(2) A creditor may require a reapplication regarding 
an open end account on the basis of a change in an applicant's 
marital status where the credit granted was based on income 
earned by the applicant's spouse if the applicant's income alone 
at the time of the original application would not support the 
amount of credit currently extended. 

(d) Signature of spouse or other person . (1) Except as 
provided in this subsection, a creditor shall not require the 



-18- 



1 



signature of an applicant's spouse or other person, other than a 
Joint applicant, on any credit instrument if the applicant 
qualifies under the creditor's standards of creditworthiness for 
the amount and terms of the credit requested. 

(2) If an applicant requests unsecured credit and 
relies in part upon property to establish creditworthiness, a 
creditor may consider State law; the form of ownership of the 
property; its susceptibility to attachment, execution, severance, 
and partition; and other factors that may affect the value to 
the creditor of the applicant's interest in the property. If 
necessary to satisfy the creditor's standards of creditworthi- 
ness, the creditor may require the signature of the applicant's 
spouse or other person on any instrument necessary, or reasonably 
believed by the creditor to be necessary, under applicable State 
law to make the property relied upon available to satisfy the 
debt in the event of default. 

(3) If a married applicant requests unsecured credit 
and resides in a community p^'operty State or if the property 
upon which the applicant is relying is located in such a State, 
a creditor may require the signature of the spouse on any 
instrument necessary, or reasonably believed by the creditor to 
be necessary, under applicable State law to make the community 
property available to satisfy the debt in the event of default 
if: 

(i) applicable State law denies the applicant 
power to manage or control sufficient community property to 
qualify for the amount of credit requested under the 
creditor's standards of creditworthiness; and 

(ii) the applicant does not have sufficient 
separate property to qualify for the amount of credit 
requested without regard to community property. 

(4) If an applicant requests secured credit, a 
creditor may require the signature of the applicant's spouse or 
other person on any instrument necessary, or reasonably believed 
by the creditor to be necessary, under applicable State law to 
make the property being offered as security available to satisfy 
the debt in the event of default, for example, any instrument to 
create a valid lien, pass clear title, waive inchoate rights, or 
assign earnings. 

(5) If, under a creditor's standards of credit- 
worthiness, the personal liability of an additional party is 



-19- 



necessary to support the extension of the credit requested, 
a creditor may request that the applicant obtain a co-signer, 
guarantor, or the like. The applicant's spouse may serve as an 
additional party, but a creditor shall not require that the 
spouse be the additional party. For the purposes of sub- 
section (d), a creditor shall not impose requirements upon an 
additional party that the creditor may not impose upon an 
applicant . 

(e) Insurance . Differentiation in the availability, 

rates, and terms on which credit-related casualty insurance or 
credit life, health, accident, or disability insurance is 
offered or provided to an applicant shall not constitute a 
violation of any Credit Discrimination Statute or this Regula- 
tion, but a creditor shall not refuse to extend credit and shall 
not terminate an account because credit life, health, accident, 
or disability insurance is not available on the basis of the 
applicant's age. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
Regulation, information about the age, sex, or marital status of 
an applicant may be requested in an application for insurance. 



SECTION 8. SPECIAL PURPOSE CREDIT PROGRAMS. 

(a) Standards for progr ams. Subject to the provisions of 
subsection (b), the Credit Discrimination Statutes and this 
Regulation are not violated if a creditor refuses to extend 
credit to an applicant solely because the applicant does not 
qualify under the special requirements that define eligibility 
for the following types of special purpose credit programs: 

(1) any credit assistance program expressly authorized 
by Federal or State law for the benefit of an economically 
disadvantaged class of persons; or 

(2) any credit assistance program offered by a not- 
for-profit organization, as defined under section 501(c) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 195^, as amended, for the benefit of 
its members or for the benefit of an economically disadvantaged 
class of persons; or 

(3) any special purpose credit program offered by a 
for-profit organization or in which such an organization partici- 
pates to meet special social needs, provided that: 



11 If an applicant requests individual credit relying on the 
separate income of another person, a creditor may require 
the signature of the other person to make the income 
available to pay the debt. 



-20- 



(i) the program Is established and administered 
pursuant to a written plan that (A) identifies the class or 
classes of persons that the program is designed to benefit 
and (B) sets forth the procedures and standards for ex- 
tending credit pursuant to the program; and 

(ii) the program is established and administered 
to extend credit to a class of persons who, pursuant to the 
customary standards of creditworthiness used by the organi- 
zation extending the credit, either probably would not 
receive such credit or probably would receive it on less 
favorable terms than are ordinarily available to other 
applicants applying to the organization for a similar type 
and amount of credit . 

(b) Applicability of other rules . (1) All of the provi- 
sions of this Regulation shall apply to each of the special 
purpose credit programs described in subsection (a) to the extent 
that those provisions are not inconsistent with the provisions of 
this section. 

(2) A program described in subsections (a)(2) or 
(a)(3) shall qualify as a special purpose credit program under 
subsection (a) only if it was established and is administered so 
as not to discriminate against an applicant on the basis of 
race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age 
(provided that the applicant has the capacity to enter into a 
binding contract), or income derived from a public assistance 
program; except that all program participants may be required to 
share one or more of those characteristics so long as the 
program was not established and is not administered with the 
purpose of evading the requirements of the Credit Discrimination 
Statutes or this Regulation. 

(c ) Special rule concerning requests and use of information . 
If all participants in a special purpose credit program described 
in subsection (a) are or will be required to possess one or more 
common characteristics relating to race, color, religion, 
national origin, sex, marital status, age, or receipt of income 
from a public assistance program and if the special purpose 
credit program otherwise satisfies the requirements of sub- 
section (a), then, notwithstanding the prohibitions of sections 5 
and 6, the creditor may request of an applicant and may consider, 
in determining eligibility for such program, information regarding 



-21- 



the common characteristics required for eligibility. In such 
circumstances, the solicitation and consideration of that 
information shall not constitute unlawful discrimination for the 
purposes of the Credit Discrimination Statutes or this Regulation. 

(d) Special rule in the case of financial need . If 
financial need is or will be one of the criteria for the exten- 
sion of credit under a special purpose credit program described 
in subsection (a), then, notwithstanding the prohibitions of 
sections 5 and 6, the creditor may request and consider, in 
determining eligibility for such program. Information regarding 
an applicant's marital status, income from alimony, child 
support, or separate maintenance, and the spouse's financial 
resources. In addition, notwithstanding the prohibitions of 
section 7(d), a creditor may obtain the signature of an applicant's 
spouse or other person on an application or credit instrument 
relating to a special purpose program if required by Federal or 
State law. In such circumstances, the solicitation and con- 
sideration of that information and the obtaining of a required 
signature shall not constitute unlawful discrimination for the 
purposes of the Credit Discrimination Statutes or this Regulation. 

SECTION 9. NOTIFICATIONS. 

(a) Notification of action taken. Equal Credit notice , 
and statement of specific reasons . 

(1) Notification of action taken . A creditor shall 
notify an applicant of action taken within: 

(i) 30 days after receiving a completed applica- 
tion concerning the creditor's approval of, or adverse 
action regarding, the application (notification of approval 
may be express or by implication, where, for example, the 
applicant receives a credit card, money, property, or 
services in accordance with the application); 

(ii) 30 days after taking adverse action on an 
uncompleted application; 

(iii) 30 days after taking adverse action regarding 
an existing account; and 

(iv) 90 days after the creditor has notified the 
applicant of an offer to grant credit other than in sub- 
stantially the amount or on substantially the terms 
requested by the applicant if the applicant during those 90 
days has not expressly accepted or used the credit offered. 



-22- 



L 



(2) Content of notification . Any notification given 
to an applicant against whom adverse action Is taken shall be In 
writing and shall contain: a statement of the action taken; a 
statement of the general purposes of the Credit Discrimination 
Statutes; the name and address of both the Commission and the 
Federal agency that administers compliance with the Federal 
Equal Credit Opportunity Act concerning the creditor giving the 
notification; and 

(1) a statement of specific reasons for the 
action taken; or 

(11) a disclosure of the applicant's right to a 
statement of reasons within 30 days after receipt by the 
creditor of a request made within -60 days of such notifi- 
cation, the disclosure to Include the name, address, and 
telephone number of the person or office from which the 
statement of reasons can be obtained. If the creditor 
chooses to provide the statement of reasons orally, the 
notification shall also Include a disclosure of the appli- 
cant's right to have any oral statement of reasons con- 
firmed in writing within 30 days after a written request 
for confirmation is received by the creditor. 

(3) Multiple applicants . If there is more than one 
applicant, the notification need only be given to one of them, 
but must be given to the primary applicant where one is readily 
apparent . 

(4) Multiple creditors . If a transaction involves 
more than one creditor and the applicant expressly accepts or 
uses the credit offered, this section does not require notifica- 
tion of adverse action by any creditor. If a transaction in- 
volves more than one creditor and either no credit is offered or 
the applicant does not expressly accept or use any credit offered, 
then each creditor taking adverse action must comply with this 
section. The required notification may be provided indirectly 
through a third party, which may be one of the creditors, pro- 
vided that the identity of each creditor taking adverse action 

is disclosed. V/henever the notification is to be provided 
through a third party, a creditor shall not be liable for any 
act or omission of the third party that constitutes a violation 
of this section if the creditor accurately and in a timely 
manner provided the third party with the information necessary 
for the notification and was maintaining procedures reasonably 
adapted to avoid any such violation. 



11a The Commission is currently reviewing the oral notice 

procedure in this section, and would appreciate comments 
on the advisability of eliminating the oral notice option 
and mandating written disclosure of reasons in all cases. 



-23- 



(b ) Form of Equal Credit notice and statement of specific 



reasons . 



(1) Equal Credit notice . A creditor satisfies the 
requirements of subsection (a)(2) regarding a statement of the 
general purposes of the Credit Discrimination Statutes, the name 
and address of the Commission and the name and address of the 
appropriate Federal enforcement agency if it provides the 
following notice, or one that is substantially similar. A 
creditor may continue to use any form of Equal Credit notice 
that com.plles with §202. 9(b) of Regulation B until its present 
stock of forms containing such §202. 9(b) notice is exhausted or 
June 1, 1978, whichever is later. 

The Federal Equal Credit Opportunity Act and compara- 
ble provisions of Massachusetts law prohibit creditors from 
discriminating against credit applicants on th^^ basis of 
race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital 
status, age (provided that the applicant has the capacity 
to enter into a binding contract); 0? because all or part 
of the applicant's Income derives from any public assis- 
tance program. The Federal Equal Credit Opportunity Act 
also prohibits creditors from discriminating against credit 
applicants because the applicant has in good faith exer- 
cised any right under the Consumer Credit Protection Act. 
The Federal agency that administers compliance rith the 
Federal law concerning this creditor is (name and address 
as specified by Regulation B). The state agency that 
administers compliance with the state law is the Massa- 
chusetts Commission Against Discrimination, One Ashburton 
Place, Boston, Massachusetts 02108. 

(2) Statement of specific reason . A statement of rea- 
sons for adverse action shall be sufficient if it is specific 
and indicates the principal reason(s) for the adverse action. 

A creditor may formulate its own statement of reasons in check- 
list or letter form or may use all or a portion of the sample 
form printed below, which, if properly completed, satisfies the 
requirements of subsection (a)(2)(i). Statements that the 
adverse action was based on the creditor's internal standards or 
policies or that the applicant failed to achieve the qualifying 
score on the creditor's credit scoring system are insufficient. 



-24- 



STATEMENT OF CREDIT DENIAL, 
TERMINATION, OR CHANGE 



DATE_ 

Applicant ' s Name : 

Applicant's Address: 



Description of Account, Transaction, or Requested 
Credit : 



Description of Adverse Action Taken: 



PRINCIPAL REASON(S) FOR ADVERSE 
ACTION CONCERNING CREDIT 

Credit application Incomplete 
Insufficient credit references 
Unable to verify credit references 
Temporary or Irregular employment 
Unable to verify employment 
Length of employment 
Insufficient Income 
Excessive obligations 
Unable to verify Income 
Inadequate collateral 
Too short a period of residence 
Temporary residence 
Unable to verify residence 
No credit file 
Insufficient credit file 
Delinquent credit obligations 

Garnishment, attachment, foreclosure, repossession, 

or suit 

Bankruptcy 

We do not grant credit to any applicant on the 
terms and conditions you request 

Appraiser's report, obtained from: (name/address/telephone 

number): 

Other, specify: 



-25- 



\ 



DISCLOSURE OF USE OF INFORMATION 
OBTAINED FROM AN OUTSIDE SOURCE 



Disclosure Inapplicable 

Information obtained In a report from a consumer 
reporting agency 

Name : 



Street Address: 



Telephone number: 

Information obtained from an outside source other 
than a consumer reporting agency. Under the Fair 
Credit Reporting Act, you have the right to make 
a written request, within 60 days of receipt of 
this notice, for disclosure of the nature of the 
adverse Information. 

Creditor's name: 

Creditor's address: 



Creditor's telephone number: 

[Add Equal Credit notice] 

(3) Other Information . The notification required by 
subsection (a)(1) may Include other information so long as it 
does not detract from the required content. This notification 
also may be combined with any disclosures required under any 
law, provided that all requirements for clarity and placement 
are satisfied; and it may appear on either or both sides of the 
paper if there is a clear reference on the front to any informa- 
tion on the back. 

(c) Oral notifications . The applicable requirements of 
this section are satisfied by oral notifications (including 
statements of specific reasons) in the case of any creditor that 
did not receive more than 150 applications during the calendar 
year immediately preceding the calendar year in which the 
notification of adverse action is to be given to a particular 
applicant . 

(d) Withdrawn applications . Where an applicant submits an 
application and the parties contemplate that the applicant will 
inquire about its status, if the creditor approves the application 



-26- 



and the applicant has not inquired within 30 days after applying, 
then the creditor may treat the application as withdrawn and 
need not comply with subsection (a)(1). 

(e) Failure of compliance . A failure to comply with this 
section shall not constitute a violation when caused by an 
inadvertent error; provided that, on discovering the error, the 
creditor corrects it as soon as possible and commences compliance 
with the requirements of this section. 

(f) Notification . A creditor notifies an applicant when a 
writing addressed to the applicant is delivered or mailed to the 
applicant's last known address or, in the case of an oral 
notification, when the creditor communicates with the applicant. 



SECTION 10. FURNISHING OF CREDIT INFORMATION. 

(a) Accounts established on or after June 1, 1977 . (1) For 
every account established on or after June 1, 1977, a creditor that 
furnishes credit information shall: 

(i) determine whether an account offered by the 
creditor is one that an applicant's spouse is permitted to 
use or upon which the spouses are contractually liable 
other than as guarantors, sureties, endorsers, or similar 
parties; and 

(ii) designate any such account to reflect the 
fact of participation of both spouses. 12 

(2) Except as provided in subsection (3), if a creditor 
furnishes credit information concerning an account designated 
under this subsection (a) (or designated prior to the effective 
date of this Regulation) to a consumer reporting agency, it 
shall furnish the information in a manner that will enable the 
agency to provide access to the information in the name of each 
spouse . 



12 A creditor need not distinguish between participation as a 
user or as a contractually liable party. 



-27- 



(3) If a creditor fui*nishes credit information 
concerning an account designated under this subsection (or 
designated prior to the effective date of this Regulation) in 
response to an inquiry regarding a particular applicant, it 
shall furnish the information in the name of the spouse about 
whom such information is requested. 13 

(b) Accounts established on or after January 1, 1978 . (1) 
For every account established on or after January 1, 1978, a 
creditor that furnishes credit information shall: 

(i) determin: whether the account offered by the 
creditor is one that the applicant will permit to be used 
by another natural person who is at least eighteen years of 
age and who is not the applicant's child or spouse or upon 
which such other natural person shall be contractually 
liable other than as a guarantor, surety, endorser or 
similar party; and 

(ii) unless the account has been designated under 
subsection (a)(l)(ii) above, designate the account to 
reflect the fact of the participation of both the applicant 
and the authorized user^^ so specified by the applicant or 
other contractually liable party. 

(2) Except as provided in subsection (3), if a 
creditor furnishes credit information concerning an account 
designated under this subsection (b) (or designated prior to the 
effective date of this Regulation) to a consumer reporting 
agency, it shall furnish the information in a manner that will 
enable the agency to provide access to the information in the 
name of the applicant and the participating party. 

13 If a creditor learns that new parties have undertaken 
payment on an account, then the subsequent history of the 
account shall be furnished in the names of the new parties 
and need not continue to be furnished in the names of the 
former parties. 

14 If an applicant permits an account to be used by more than 
one other participant, only one of the participants so 
authorized need be given the credit reporting rights re- 
ferred to in subsection (b). If a spouse is one of the listed 
users, only the spouse shall receive such credit reporting 
rights . 



-28- 



i 



I 



(3) If a creditor furnishes credit information 
concerning an account designated under this subsection (b) (or 
designated prior to the effective date of this Regulation) in 
response to an inquiry regarding a particular applicant, it 
shall furnish the information in the name of the participant 
about whom such information is requested. 

(c) Inadvertent errors . A failure to comply with this 
section shall not constitute a violation when caused by an 
inadvertent error; provided that, on discovering the error, the 
creditor corrects it as soon as possible and commences compliance 
with the requirements of this section. 



SECTION 11. RELATION TO OTHER LAW OF THE COMMONWEALTH. 

This Regulation does not alter or annul any provision of 
the property laws of Massachusetts, laws relating to the dis- 
position of decedents' estates, or banking regulations directed 
only toward insuring the solvency of financial institutions. 



SECTION 12. RECORD RETENTION. 

(a) Retention of prohibited information . Retention in a 
creditor's files of any information, the use of which in evalu- 
ating applications is prohibited by this Regulation, shall not 
constitute a violation of the Credit Discrimination Statutes or 
this Regulation where such information was obtained: 

(1) from any source prior to June 1, 1977, provided 
that such information was not obtained in violation of prior 
regulations of the Commission; or 

(2) at any time from consumer reporting agencies; or 

(3) at any time from an applicant or others without 
the specific request of the creditor; or 

(^) at any time as required to monitor compliance 
with the Federal Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Regulation B, the 
Credit Discrimination Statutes, this Regulation, or other 
Federal or State statutes or regulations dealing with credit 
discrimination matters. 

(b) Preservation of records . (1) For 25 months after the 
date that a creditor notifies an applicant of action taken on an 



-29- 



I 



application, the creditor shall retain as to that application in 
original form or a copy thereof: 15 

(i) any application form that it receives, any 
information required to be obtained concerning character- 
istics of an applicant to monitor compliance with this 
Regulation or other similar law, and any other written or 
recorded information used in evaluating the application and 
not returned to the applicant at the applicant's request; 

(ii) a copy of the following documents if fur- 
nished to the applicant in written form (or, if furnished 
orally, any notation or memorandum with respect thereto 
made by the creditor): 

(A) the notification of action taken; and 

(B) the statement of specific reasons for 
adverse action; and 

(iii) any written statement submitted by the 
applicant alleging a violation of the credit discrimination 
provisions of the Federal Equal Credit Opportunity Ac i. , 
Regulation B, any Credit Discrimination Statute or this 
Regulation. 

(2) For 25 months after the date that a creditor 
notifies an applicant of adverse action regarding an account, 
other than in connection with an application, the creditor shall 
retain as to that account, in original form or a copy thereof: 16 

(i) any written or recorded information con- 
cerning such adverse action; and 

(ii) any written statement submitted by the 
applicant alleging a violation of the credit discrimina- 
tion provisions of the Federal Equal Credit Opportunity 
Act, Regulation B, any Credit Discrimination Statute or 
this Regulation. 



15 "A copy thereof" includes carbon copies, photocopies, 
microfilm or microfiche copies, or copies produced by any 
accurate information retrieval system. A creditor who uses 
a computerized or mechanized system need not keep a written 
copy of a document if it can regenerate the precise text of 
the document upon request. 

16 See footnote 15. 



-30- 



(3) In addition to the requirements of subsections 
(b)(1) and (2), any creditor that has actual notice that it is 
under investigation or is subject to an enforcement proceeding 
for an alleged violation of the credit discrimination provisions 
of any Credit Discrimination Statute or this Regulation, or that 
has been served with notice of a civil action filed by an aggrieved 
applicant and alleging violation of the credit discrimination 
provisions of any Credit Discrimination Statute or this Regulation, 
shall retain the information required in subsections (b)(1) and 
(2) until final disposition of the matter, unless an earlier 
time is allowed by order of the Commission or a court. 

(^) In any transaction involving more than one 
creditor, any creditor not required to comply with section 9 
(notifications) shall retain for the time period specified in 
subsection (b) all written or recorded information in its 
possession concerning the applicant, including a notation of 
action taken in connection with any adverse action. 

(c) Failure of compliance . A failure to comply with this 
section shall not constitute a violation when caused by an 
inadvertent error. 



I 



-31- 



COMMON\VEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 



MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION AGAINST 
DISCRIMINATION 



^ Fourth Ninety-Day Report To The 
Governor And Clerks Of The 
Senate and House Pursuant To 
Chapter 463, Of The Acts Of 1976. 



Respectfully submitted, 
JANE C. EDMONDS, Chclrman 
ALEX RODRIGUEZ, Commissioner 
SAMUEL STONEFIELD, Coimnissioner 



^tate Library of Massathusetts 

May 13, 1978 . iJ Da 

— State House, Boston 



PUBLICATION : #1 0565-21 -1 00-6-78-CR 

APPROVED by Alfred C. Holland, State Purchasing Agent. 



c 2^ 



I. INTRODUCTION : 

This is the combined third and fourth Ninety-Day Report 
submitted by the three Commissioners of the Massachusetts 
Commission Against Discrimination under Chapter 463 of the 
Acts of 1976, Since this Report marks the end of the first 
full year under three full-time Commissioners, the Report 
will direct attention to both the accomplishments of this 
first year and the goals still to be accomplished, 

II. BACKLOG REDUCTION : 

The ma;jor problem which faced the three new Commissioners 
in March, 1977 was the constantly growing backlog of com- 
plaints lodged with the agency. The backlog problem, which 
also distressed the Legislature, became the Commission's top 
priority, and the agency was mobilized to attack it on all 
fronts. 

The object of the backlog effort is to investigate and 
make determinations on as many cases as possible, as promptly 
as resources permit. "Tie results of the first stage backlog 
effort were reported in the second i^Tinety-Day Report (p,4). 

The second stage of the backlog effort was initiated in 
October, when a Backlog Unit, consisting of two Senior MCAD 
investigators, CETA employees and student interns was estab- 
lished to spearhead the attack. The Commissioners have 
established a performance goal for this unit of 175 cases, per 
month, or 700 cases per year. Fully 600 of these should be 



I 



-2- 



employment cases which will be credited toward fulfilling the 
Agency's agreement with the E.E.O.C, 

The results of the backlog effort to date can be seen 
in the simple statistics: 

Cases in active file at the end of 1976 - 3900 
Cases in active file at the end of 1977 - 3000 

More cases were closed in 1977 than in any prior year 
in this Commission's history. Thus, despite the 1700 com- 
plaints filed in the last calendar year, the backlog of 
Commission cases has been reduced by 900 during the same period. 

V^ile substantial inroads have been made into the MCAD's 
backlog, its prompt elimination (the Commission's goal and 
the Commonwealth's mandate) depends upon additional funding 
and additional investigator's positions. At the present rate, 
with only the resources now available, the backlog will not 
be eliminated until March, 1981. This predicted date is not 
near enough to be acceptable to the Commissioners. Therefore 
they are making every effort to obtain the assistance needed 
to shorten the time required. 
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS : 

The Commissioners inherited a serious backlog problem 
with cases waiting for conciliation or public hearing. The 
Commissioners have developed a set of conciliation guidelines 
to make this process work more effectively. They have also 
established a hearing list, and have embarked on a greatly 
expanded hearing schedule. 



i 



-3- 



During the first year, the Commission held less than 
twelve hearings. The legal and investigative staff were being 
deployed on backlog and new case processing procedures. 
However, with new procedures implemented and sound manage- 
ment systems operational, the Commissioners can now devote 
more time to the public hearing role. They have established 
a minimum goal of twenty-six hearings. They have also 
entered into an agreement with the Division of Hearing Offi- 
cers whereby the DHO has agreed to designate a hearing 
officer to conduct hearings for the Commission. This arrange- 
ment should more than double the adjudicatory capacity of 
the Commission. 

B. INTERN PROGRAM ; 

Another major factor in backlog reduction has been the 
use of student interns. Unfortunately, this program has a 
built-in problem. The interns must be trained for a period 
at the start, work only part-time since they are also attending 
classes, are apt to go out of town during school vacation, 
and, in any case, regard their participation as temporary. 
Given the many interruptions of intern work, the Commissioners 
came to the conclusion that this essential program needed to 
be revised for greater cost effectiveness. Therefore a 
restructuring project was undertaken to define curriculum, 
to lay guidelines for time-commitment, and to develop a 
constant training mechanism. Assistance has also been sought 



-4- 



from the local law schools. The effects of this restructuring 
have been very satisfactory since it permitted successful 
use of interns to make unexpected progress in the attack on 
the backlog. However the Commission lacks the resources 
needed to provide adequate supervision for the longer number 
of interns which would be needed to increase their rate of 
backlog reduction. As an alternative, if four full-time 
field investigators could be added to the Commission staff, 
the Intern Program would be less crucial in the backlog 
effort. 

III. MANAGEMENT REORGANIZATION ; 

The change from four part-time Commissioners to three 
full-time Commissioners, one of whom was based in Springfield 
rather than all being based in Boston, allowed major struc- 
tural changes in the MCAD. 

At the highest level, administrative policy making was 
directly centralized by eliminating the second-rank position 
of Director of Administration. The Chairman is now the pri- 
mary decision-maker supplemented by the other two Commissioners 
in selected areas. The Commissioners also decided that they, 
rather than the legal staff should make the ultimate determi- 
nations of "probable cause" or "lack of probable cause," 
This has unified the decision-making criteria and freed the 
legal staff to function in the more effective roles of agency 
counsel and trial counsel. The Commissioners have also 
developed a "hands on" method of dealing directly with local 



-5- 



advisory councils on discrimination problems and efforts. 
The beneficial efforts of direct contact between Commis- 
sioners and localities should be made more permanent by the 
state-wide advisory council to the MCAD, The council was 
created by recent legislation and is comprised of thirty 
members, eleven of whom are Chairmen of regional, MCAD 
advisory councils and nineteen of whom • represent special 
interest groups specified in the statute. The Chairman of 
the state-wide council has been appointed by Governor Dukakis, 
and plans have been made for regular meetings between the 
council and the three Commissioners. Finally, the Commis- 
sioners have also undertaken direct action in the field of 
Civil Rights coordination. Further details on this activity 
may be found in the section titled Federal/State Civil Rights 
Review, infra . 

At the level of office management, the Commissioners 
appointed an executive secretary at the start of the third 
quarter of their time in office. An important part of the 
executive secretary's 30b is the modernization and ration- 
alization of the Administrative Procedures Manual. In 
addition, at the discretion of the Commission, the present 
appointee is responsible for exercising control of budget 
and personnel matters, implementing Commission policy, super- 
vising the clerical staff, performing the duties of affirma- 
tive action officer, coordinating the intern program and 
coordinating the Management Task Force, 



1 



-6- 



The Management Task Force is composed of the chief person 
in each of the five units: Investigations, Public Emplojmient, 
Control, Agency Counsel and the Executive Secretary. This 
task force meets at least once a week with one or more Com- 
missioners to report on progress, receive new assignments 
and generally to "grieve and groan. " 

To co-ordinate the rapidly expanding activities of the 
Commission, a computerized Rapid Charge Processing system 
was put into effect in June, 1977 • Using this system, the 
Case Control Unit has been developing the capability to gen- 
erate statistical reports on cases filed and cases closed 
monthly, by type, class and jurisdiction. The monthly reports 
which, in the past, were produced manually in two weeks are 
now produced in two days. In addition, the case status and 
alphabetic listing reports are now produced every week 
(instead of bimonthly) also in two days. 

One important task for the proper functioning of the 
computerized system was the correction of past accumulated 
errors. This project has proceeded as planned. The 1100 
errors existing at the end of September, 1977, had been 
reduced to 116 by the end of November. Overall, the accuracy 
rate in this unit is up to 959^ 

The case control unit also produces bottleneck reports 
on cases which are failing to move at the desired rate. 
These reports are reviewed at the weekly management meeting 



I 



-7- 



and are used to target the next assignments. The resulting 
memos require investigators who are proceeding too slowly to 
produce either prompt and specific action or written explan- 
ations with projected timetables for future action. 
IV. MORE EFFICIENT CASE PROCESSING ; 

Determined to improve the process by which the agency 
handled its case load, the Commissioners entered into a con- 
tract with Community Dispute Services of the American 
Arbitration Association, The project included a thorough 
review of the system presently used by MCAD, plus examination 
of systems used for similar purposes in other states. At 
the end of August, 1977, the Project Manager submitted a 
draft of the new Case Processing Guidelines to the Commis- 
sioners. 

The draft was reviewed by numerous persons and groups 
including the MCAD staff, representatives of the Attorney 
General, the Massachusetts Bar Association, the Lawyers' 
Committee for Civil Rights, the Civil Liberties Union of 
Massachusetts and the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute. 
In December, 1977, the Commission held informal hearings on 
the draft Guidelines which were extremely productive. 

IVhile the draft was being rewritten, the A. A. A. gave 
the veteran MCAD staff extensive training geared to rapid 
case processing procedures. At the same time, the technique 
of a Fact-Finding Conference was put into practice as part 



I 



I 



-8~ 

of the announced trial period, A one-page check sheet was 
prepared by the supervisor to assist the investigators who 
conducted the conferences. In general, the reaction has 
been favorable enough for the supervisor to feel the new 
process is going in the right direction. The parties seem 
pleased with the results and as the staff gains experience, 
their cautious acceptance of new methods seems to be turning 
into enthusiasm. 

The A, A. A. training program has proven to be very satis- 
factory for the entire MCAD staff. The investigators can use 
the new system and procedures efficiently. The effectiveness 
of attorneys and Commissioners has also increased markedly. 
The whole staff has been thoroughly acclimated to a two- 
pronged attack on complaints. First, where possible, everyone 
hopes to achieve voluntary settlement and thus, close the 
case. Second, if a voluntary settlement proves to be im- 
possible, the staff is now well-prepared to move into public 
hearing and, where necessary, agency resolution and enforce- 
ment. 

Aware of the sensitivity of proper timing, especially 
for full staff participation, the Commissioners made a policy 
decision to reject the implementation schedule proposed by 
the consultants. The consultants had estimated that the new 
Guidelines could be implemented by January 28, 1978. This, 
' the Commissioners felt, would not allow sufficient time to 



■f 




-9- 



rework the Guidelines with the benefit of all the collected 
criticisms. Secondly, the consultants had urged that all 
resources be devoted to handling the current case load 
rather than investing a certain portion in handling the back- 
log. The MCAD decided that such action would violate both 
its philosophical commitment and its legislative mandate to 
eliminate the backlog. 

When the re-write has been completed, and circulated, 
and interested parties given an opportunity to evaluate the 
results, the final case Processing Guidelines will.^be imple- 
mented. By the Spring of 1978, with the help of the experienced 
and devoted staff, the Commissioners believe that their goal 
of a ninety-day case processing limit for virtually all 
incoming cases will be within reach, 
V. AGENCY INITIATED COMPLAINTS ; 

By statute, the Agency is not restricted to reviewing 
only complaints which come in from the t)utside. If the Agency 
has knowledge of apparent discriminatory behavior in viola- 
tion of state and/or federal civil rights statutes, MCAD has 
the power to initiate a complaint on its own initiative. In 
the past, this power has been little used, and then on a 
rather small scale problem, such as Boston taxi cab drivers. 
This past year, however, the Commissioners have realized that 
this type of complaint can and should be a powerful tool to 
bring about constructive change. 



i 



-10- 



As a first step, the MCAD identified ten of the worst 
offenders in the Commonwealth, The aim of this "Ten Most 
Wanted" list was to target objects for Commission initiated 
complaints. However, before embarking on a crusade iagainst 
all ten at once, the Commissioners realized that an efficient 
and effective systemic approach required careful groundwork. 
Resources should be first surveyed, then additional resources 
located and collected, and finally they should be allocated 
thoughtfully. 

Thus the year has been used to examine the resources 
available and to seek out ways to increase them. One pro- 
ductive if limited effort was the rationalization of the 
agency organization. Another effort was aimed at showing 
the legislators how an increase in the MCAD's budget would 
speed achievement of legislative objectives. Finally, 
and most potentially fruitful, is the continuing effort to 
obtain a substantial increase in federal funds. The effect 
of this year's activity has been to lay the groundwork to 
enable the Agency to move aggressively against offenders on 
the "Ten Most Wanted" list, 
VI. THE YEAR IN STATISTICS 

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY 

March, 1976 - February, 1977 

March, 1977 - February, 1978 



-11- 



A. New Complaints Received 

1976 1977 



Quarter 1 


457 


Quarter 


1 


491 


Quarter 2 


507 


Quarter 


2 


545 


Quarter 3 


375 


Quarter 


3 


394 


Quarter 4 


396 


Quarter 


4 


282 


TOTAL 


1735 


TOTAL 




1712 


Complaints Closed 








1976 




1977 




Quarter 1 


362 


Quarter 


1 


645 


Quarter 2 


529 


Quarter 


2 


602 


Quarter 3 


528 


Quarter 


3 


769 


Quarter 4 


569 


Quarter 


4 


456 



TOTAL 1988 TOTAL 2472 

C, Monetary Awards To Complainants 

1976 1977 

Quarter 1 31,763.43 Quarter 1 83,632.46 

Quarter 2 30,708,90 Quarter 2 49,010.07 

Quarter 3 41,094.08 Quarter 3 28,236.7^ 

Quarter 4 138,009.09 Quarter 4 34,894.57 

TOTAL 241,575-50 TOTAL 195,773.65 

The use of a computerized system has enabled the Agency 
to embark on a scientific management information system in 
place of the old system which was basically educated guess- 
work. Already it is possible to axamine the case load and 
progress of each staff member weekly and to use this for 
individual assignments which results in the prioritization 
of the individual's workload. Further advantages are fore- 
seen from the continued sophistication of the Rapid Charge 
Processing system, a project for which federal funds are 
being requested. 



-12- 



VII. OTHER RELATED ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMISSION 

In addition to its basic functions the Commission has 
been productive in other important areas. 

1. Field Offices - Springfield, Worcester, New Bedford 
The Springfield office has been clearly benefited 

by the regular presence of a Commissioner. The V/orcester 
office is now fully staffed and moving efficiently. However, 
there is need for additional assistance at the New Bedford 
office. The Boston office has assigned one of its legal staff 
to New Bedford, but it is all this attorney and the resident 
staff can do to keep abreast of current cases. Thus, the 
New Bedford office may be generating still more backlog. 

2. E.E.O.C. Federal Grant Program - 1978-1979 
With the end of the '77- '78 grant and the marked 

increase in the MCAD performance, the Commission antici- 
pated substantial increases. However, the Commission failed 
to allow for major changes at the top of both agencies and 
the effect of such changes on the grant negotiations. Thus, 
while the amount of the new grant will be almost double that 

of the old ($127,000 in 1977 to $244,000 in 1978) the Com- 
missioners felt that the amount could have been more than 
three times the 1977 figure if this year's productivity had 
been accurately reported. Feeling that the inaccuracies had 
originated in the District Office of E.E.O.C, the three 
Commissioners travelled to Washington in an effort to correct 



-13- 



the erroneous report. As a result of these efforts, the 
Commission hopes to reap an additional $80,000 bringing the 
effective total of the re-negotiated grant to $324,000. 

In addition to this grant negotiation, reported plans 
to reduce the staffing of the local E.E.O.C, office are of 
great concern to the Commission, The E,E.O,C, refers many 
individual cases to the MCAD for processing. The result is 
an estimated one-to-one relationship "between the number of 
E.E.O.C, personnel and the MCAD backlog. Thus, any reduction 
in local E,E.O,C, staff will require increased financial 
support from the Legislature to make it possible for MCAD 
to fulfill its legislative mandate to conquer the backlog 
problem, 

3. Public Information 

The Commissioners, functioning without a public 
information officer, are energetically trying to bring the 
methods and goals of the MCAD to public attention and accep- 
tance. Some members of the media have been extremely 
cooperative. However, fearing to spread their efforts too 
thin, the Commissioners have been concentrating on meeting 
with relevant special interest groups such as the Complainant' 
bar and the Respondent's bar. The effects of this strategy 
have been promising. 



I 

I 



I 
i 

I 

! 



-14- 

Presumably as a result of the revigorated Commission 
activity which has received increasingly favorable press 
coverage there has been a large increase in requests for MCj^^D 
speakers. Therefore the Commissioners are re-activating the 
"Speakers Bureau'' to be filled by staff volunteers. The 
Commission views the Bureau as a visible vehicle through 
which the public can be educated on MCAD law and which can 
help the Agency maintain a positive image with its consti- 
tuents. 

4, Federal/state Civil Rights Review 

Implementation of the Civil Rights Review of 
federal and state grant applications intensified as the pro- 
gram was extended to increasing numbers of grants especially 
after September, 1977. Significant success was achieved in 
negotiating memoranda of agreement with or in receipt of 
affirmative action plans from over 40 cities and towns. 
The memoranda provide a formal contractual mechanism whereby 
the cities and towns agree with the Commission to the develop- 
ment of affirmative and remedial programs in the areas of 
employment, housing and contract compliance in construction. 
Draft Affirmative Action Guidelines in both areas 
of employment and housing were printed and distributed to 
all 351 cities and toims in the Commonwealth as well as to 
a number of other entities. Commission staff began monitoring 
performance of various cities and towns under the memoranda 



r. 




-15- 



of agreements and began to work in close conjunction with the 
entities to achieve affective implementation. In Summary: 

a. Memoranda of Affl^eement - were reached with, 
among other cities and towns; Boston, Cam- 
bridge, Chelsea, V/atertown, Springfield, Salem 
Newburyport, Lynn, Lawrence, Maiden, Brookline 

Framingham, Marlborough, Fitchburg, V/orcester, 
Holyoke, Haverhill, Arlington, Sharon, 

Additionally, agreements have been negotiated 

with a number of other entities and are in 

the final stages of being processed for 

signatures. 

b. Draft Affirmative Action Guidelines - were 
mailed to the chief executive offices of the 
351 cities and towns, as well as the area of 
planning councils and other interested parties < 
A public hearing on the guidelines was held 

at the Commission offices on January 12, 1978. 
Every effort has been made to obtain responses 
from individual cities as well as local organ- 
izations, With the aid of those responses, a 
final set of Guidelines has been drawn up. 
Promulgation is expected by June 1, 1978. 



-16- 



Preliminary meetings - have been held with 
representatives from the "39" Community Devel- 
opment Block Grant "HUD" entitlement communities 
in conjunction with the joint session sponsored 
by the Department of Community Affairs and 
MCAD. At the all-day information session which 
was attended by nearly all of the entities, 
the Commissioners, assisted by the staff, pro- 
vided detailed information on future require- 
ments of the local entities. 
¥ork continued on Department of Community 
Affairs Affirmative Action Guidelines for 
local housing authorities. Although delays 
have occured, a public hearing has been held 
and a redrafted version completed. The regu- 
lations should be promulgated in June, 1978. 
A major problem has been to find ways of 
involving smaller communities in regional 
housing plans which make specific commitments. 
Commissioners are meeting wjth members of the 
development cabinet in an effort to plan 
implementation of the state's Civil Rights 
Review of State Grant applications. This 
activity will be ongoing as the Commission 
develops systems to insure both an effective 
and efficient system for review of discre- 
tionary state funding programs. 



I 



-17- 



f. Commissioners met with the governor's Local 
Advisory Committee and representatives from 
the Mass. League of Cities and Towns. Every 
effort is being made to advise local entities 
of requirements long before specific grant 
applications are made and to provide them with 
input in the development of guidelines. 

g. As part of this program, the Commission and 
the State Director of Affirmative Action 
caused state agencies which are applicants 
for discretionary state assistance, to main- 
tain standards equal to or greater than those 
required of local jurisdictions. As a result, 
redrafted affirmative action programs have 
been submitted to the State Director of 
Affirmative Action. 

The Commission staff will .continue to conduct the Civil 
Rights Reviews of Grant applications for conformity with 
federal and state equal opportunity requirements. Addition- 
ally, the Commission staff will continue to work with those 
communities which are charged with alleged Civil Rights 
violations to mediate the issues and to provide results which 
allow the cities and towns to continue to receive the federal 
CRS funding. 



-18- 



V. PUBLIC ET^LOYMENT COMPLAINT ACTIVITY 

The two Field Investigators assigned to the division 
investigating complaints filed against public sector employers 
at the state, county and local level completed investiga- 
tions of a total of 123 cases during 1977. The 

Division continued work on development of a rapid case 
processing system. 

VI, CONTRACT COMPLIANCE 

Work continued on the redraft of proposed public hearing 
guidelines for initiation of formal non-compliance proceed- 
ings against state contractors who are in apparent non- 
compliance. Meetings were conducted with the various state 
agencies in an effort to elicit responses to questions 
concerning the proposed hearing procedures and to insure 
conformity among all the agencies. Following hearings, a 
copy of the guidelines were submitted to the Secretary of 
State . 

Additionally, continuing effort will be made to provide 
for re-evaluation of the current contract compliance system 
enforced throughout all state and state-assisted contracts. 
Areas under examination include the current numerical hiring 
goals as well as procedural changes in the contract specifi- 
cations, which will provide for greater efficiency and 
eliminate duplicate reporting by contractors and/or state 
agencies, l^^lile reasonable success has been attained in the 



-19- 



program during the construction season, additional changes 
in the program must be initiated. 

I. LEGAL DEPARTIVIENT 

The past year has witnessed a significant evolution of 
the Legal Department's function. No longer responsible for 
case processing supervision, the lawyers are able to direct 
the bulk of their talents towards negotiating settlements 
and commencing an intensive attack on- bhe public hearing 
backlog. Under the direction of the Acting General Council, 
a Senior Staff Attorney has been designated to supervise the 
attorneys in 'selecting, preparing, and trying of cases that 
previously had to lie dormant on the Commission's public 
hearing list because of the lawyers' case processing 
supervisory responsibilities. 

In an effort to take full advantage of the powers 
statutorily conferred upon the Commission, specific lawyers 
have been assigned responsibility for swiftly initiating 
court actions to enforce Commission orders against recalci- 
trant respondents. Similarly, the Legal Department has 
sought and obtained court orders enforcing investigative 
subpeonas and enjoining the alienation of real property 
pending the disposition of alleged housing discriminatirn 
complaints. These activities have resulted in stepped up 
cooperation by persons dealing with the Commission's staff 
and, consequently, speedier resolution of complaints. 



-20- 



The Commission's historically unsatisfactory record on 
judicial review of its decisions has been sharply reversed 
in the last year. Among our recent successes has been the 
Supreme Judicial Court's affirmation of a Commission finding 
against the City of Springfield, The City had failed to 
promote thv3 most qualified patrolman to the position of 
sergeant because of racial bias, Springfield Board of Police 
Commissioners V. M. C. A. P. , S.F.C. No. 1285. The officer 
involved has been promoted to sergeant with all benefits, 
including salary, retroactive to 1971, the year he was 
unlawfully denied his promotion. 

In LIFE Corporation v, M.C.A.D, , Middlesex Superior 
No, 75-4800, the Commission's decision that a highly qualified 
woman was unlawfully denied an executive position on the 
basis of her sex was upheld. The company opted not to appeal 
the confirmation to a higher court, but rather to comply 
with the Commission's order. The Legal Department will 

continue its efforts to defend the Commission's attack on 
unlawful discrimination at all levels of the employment 
spectrum. 

Finally, the Legal Department, along with the entire 
Commission staff, hopefully, awaits the Supreme Judicial 
Court's determination in Massachusetts Electric Co. v . 
M.C.A.D. « S,J,C. No. 1068. In this case, the Legal Depart- 
ment has zealously argued that Massachusetts law proscribes 



^1 



I 




I 



-21- 



as illegal sex discrimination the disparate treatment of 
pregnancy related disabilities by employers despite the 
United States Supreme Court's decision that such disparate 
treatment is not unlawful under the federal anti-sex 
discrimination in employment statute. The Commission will 
continue and expand on its mandate to represent the pro- 
gressive attitudes of the Commonwealth's citizens and will 
not be dissuaded by less progressive tribunals in other 
parts of the nation. 

The Legal Department is currently anticipating a . 
significant increase in the amount of its EEOC grant. 
Resultant staff increases will enable the lawyers to imple- 
ment a full scale assault on the widespread systemic 
discrimination plaguing minorities and women within the 
Commonwealth. As the efforts of those determined to exclude 
these groups from the enjoyment of equal opportunity become 
more sophisticated, this Commission becomes even more 
determined to meet this new challenge with the most competent 
and creative lawyering possible. 



1 Q-7Q Report to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 
I / / / Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination 



It is hereby declared 
the public policy of the 
Commonwealth that it is 
necessary to protect and 
safeguard the right and 
opportunity of inhabitants 
of this commonwealth to 
pDtain, noio and continue 
in the unabridged enjoy- 
ment and benefit of gain- 
ful employment without 
( z, crimination or abridj 

1979 
I C.2 



Statewide Advisory Board 

Henry M. Thomas, Chairperson, Urban League, Springfield 
Myron S. Alexander, Vice-Chairperson, Manufacturer, Boston 

'John Andrade, Minority Recruiter, New Bedford 
Elsie Basque, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Abington 
Lawrence Beane, Banker, Springfield 
Dora Bastarache, Community Worker, New Bedford 
Carmen S. Canino, Area Health Education Center, Watertown 
Edna Hodgson, Senior Citizens Organizer, Jamaica Plain 
Edward M. Berger, Manufacturer, Sharon 

Terasita Rivera, Western Massachusetts Legal Services, Springfield 
*James W. McClain, Businessman, Stoughton 
Peter Kin-L^p Chan, Chinatown Little City Hall, Boston 

* Donald Butler, Banker, Pittsfield 
Manuel Carreiro, Southeastern Massachusetts University, New Bedford 
Frederick Fay, Tufts New England Medical Center, Boston 
Nina Galvin, Spanish American Union, Springfield 

Elizabeth Gittes, Governor's Commission on the Status of Women, Boston 

* David Hampton, Third World Jobs ClearingHouse, Worcester 
Scoba F. Rhodes, Southeastern Massachusetts University, East Falmouth 

'Barbara Schnuer, Community Worker, Lunenburg 

Scott M. Steams, Jr., Realtor, Longmeadow 

Joel P. Suttenberg, American Jewish Committee, Boston 
'David Wharton, North Shore Community Center, Lynn 
'Syvalia Hyman, III, United South End Settlements, Boston 

Polly Jackson, Massachusetts League of Women Voters, Lincoln 
'Charlotte Lawrence, Greater Lawrence Community Action Council, North Andov^ 

Thomas A. Mela, Massachusetts Advocacy Center, Needham 

Amelia Miclette, State Civil Service Commission, Maiden 
' Elizabeth Metz, Bristol Community College, Wetport 

'Chairperson of regional advisory council 



Regional Advisory Council Chairpersons 

Robert Jones, Springfield Advisory Council 

Syvalia Hyman, Boston Advisory Council 

Scoba F. Rhodes, Cape Cod Advisory Council 

Elizabeth Metz, Fall River Advisory Council 

Michael Ciota, Fitchburg Advisory Council 

Donald Butler, Berkshire Advisory Council 

David Hampton, Worcester Advisory Council 

Charlotte M. Lawrence, Merrimack Valley Advisory Council 

James W. McClain, South Shore Advisory Council 

David Wharton, North Shore Advisory Council 

John Andrade, New Bedford Advisory Council 



On the Cover 

The words on the cover are an excerpt from the law establishing what 
now the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination 
(Massachusetts General Laws 1946, Ch. 368, Sec. 4). 



This report was produced by the Center for Information Sharing, Boston, wi 
the cooperation and assistance of the commissioners and staff of the MCAD. 



1979 

Report to the Commonwealth 

of Massachusetts 

Edward J. King, Governor 



Massachusetts 
Commission Against Discrimination 

Commissioners 
Jane Center Edmonds, Chairman 
Alex Rodriguez 
Samuel Stonefield 



December 1979 



Contents 



Discrimination: Legal and Illegal 

Serving Individuals 

Serving the Community 

A Long History 

Reorganization 

The Complaint Process 

The MCAD Today 

Some Faas about the MCAD 

The MCAD in 1979 

Planning for the Future 

If You Ever Need Us 



** . . .to protect and safeguard. . . " 



The MCAD and You 



Some day \/ou may need the MCAD — if you are looking for a job, a place to live, 
a loan, insurance, vocational training, or education. There is a strong possibility that 
you will encounter illegal discrimination at some point in your life, whether you are a 
woman, a man, married or single, black, white, or Hispanic, a parent with young 
children, a Catholic, Jew or Protestant, a labor union member, over 40, on public 
assistance or from different ethnic backgrounds. 

The MCAD serves all the people of the Commonwealth. Every person in 
Massachusetts is protected by federal law and by the Commonwealth's own anti- 
discrimination laws. The purpose of these laws is clear and their language is strong like 
the words on the cover and at the top of this page. The Massachusetts Commission 
Against Discrimination (MCAD) is the agency responsible for enforcing these laws, to 
ensure that you, your family, your friends, your neighbors — in fact, all the people in 
Massachusetts — are protected against illegal discrimination. 

Some day you may need the MCAD — if you are an employer trying to comply 
with the latest in federal legislation, if you are a city or town official whose federal 
grants have been stalled because of your government's hiring practices, if you are a 
landlord who isn't sure how to interpret the anti-discrimination laws. The MCAD will 
give you the support and advice you need. 

The MCAD is a strong agency with a solid record of accomplishments. We have 
detailed these accomplishments here so that if the need arises you will know that the 
MCAD is here to help you. 





Discrimination: 

Legal and Illegal 

Many kinds of discrimination are illegal. But it is important to unde 
stand that, even today, some kinds of discrimination under some kinds o 
circumstances are not prohibited by law. Only when we, the people of 
Massachusetts, through our state legislature decide that a particular prac- j 
tice is not only unfair, but something people in the Commonwealth shou I 
be protected against, is a law passed making that form of discrimination i 
legal. The kinds of discrimination that are illegal are defined precisely by i 
law. The chart on the next page, although greatly simplified, will give yo ; 
some idea of the general areas covered by our anti-discrimination laws. 

The MCAD Fights Illegal Discrimination 

The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) is 
the civil rights law enforcement agency for the Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts. Operating under a broad statutory mandate, the Commis 
sion is empowered to investigate and decide cases of discrimination in th( 
areas of employment, housing, public accommodations, credit, services, 
and education. The Commission can receive and initiate complaints. It h. 
strong investigatory powers and clear authority to require remedies wher 
discrimination has been found to exist. 

As a law enforcement agency, the MCAD's goal is full compliance 
with civil rights laws and regulations, and the Commission's efforts are al 
designed to achieve that goal. In addition to handling complaints, the 
Commission promulgates rules and regulations, and both monitors and 
assists businesses and government in their civil rights compliance efforts. 

Major Areas in which Discrimination 
Is Illegal 

Employment: 

The Fair Practices Law protects the rights of Massachusetts workers to ol 
tain and maintain employment free of discrimination. Coverage extends 
advertising, hiring, discharge and all terms and conditions of employmen 

Public and Private Housing: 

It is illegal to discriminate in the sale, rental or leasing of property, housii 
or apartments and all related services such as advertising, showing of pre 
erty, obtaining a mortgage, etc. 

Public Accommodations: 

No one may be denied services or access to any place, whether licensed c 
unlicensed, which solicits or accepts the patronage of the general public 
(hotels, restaurants, stores, transportation, hospitals, etc.). No distinction 
may be made on the basis of race, sex, physical or mental handicap, 
religious creed, or national origin. 

Credit and Services: 

People may not be denied credit because of their race, religion, sex, mari 
status, national origin, age, or status as a recipient of public assistance. 
Discrimination is also prohibited in advertisting, approving a loan, and e 
tending credit. 



I 



ducational Institutions: 

lassachusetts mandates equal educational opportunities for all of its 
ttizens in any educational institution which accepts students or applica- 
ons from the general public. 



Protected Classifications 



Employment 



Public Public and Other Post-GracJuate 
Accommo- Multiple Covered General & Vocational Financial 
dations Dwelling Housing Education Education Credit 



see 






























olor 




























?ligion/Creed 




























ational Origin 


H 








fi 


















ncestry 
















\x 





















1 



larital Status 



fe 



ifrsons with Children 



ibneral Handicap 



lindness Hj 


1 


m m 


l?afness H 


m 




'elfare Recipients 




'iterans 






lembers of Armed Services 






■ Protected 






iDortant Note Some prnrertpd r,=irpnnrips surh ris pkjp in pmplnvmenr (4n-(SSI ^rp limitpd r,?ll nr writp rn rhp MCAD for further information. 



"Affirmative Action" means extra effort. It is required whenever the 
Tiployment "profile" of a given employer does not approximate the popula- 
pn in the surrounding community. Through an affirmative action program, 
n employer attempts to correct this imbalance. 

' There are two general types of remedial measures that an employer may 
ave to institute. The first type is preventive: identification of the sources of 
|ie discriminatory practices, (i.e. tests, job requirements, recruitment, etc.) and 
prrection or elimination of those practices. If effective, these steps should pre- 
?nt the problem from becoming worse in the future. However, preventive 
:eps will not rectify the current problem. To correct the results of past 
iscrimination, the employer must also take positive steps to increase the 
[presentation of underutilized groups (blacks, Hispanics, women, handi- 
ppped, etc.). This does not mean that unqualified minorities must be hired. It 
pes mean that the employer must make an extra effort to locate potential 
inployees, and may give qualified people who are likely victims of discrimina- 
pn some extra consideration in filling open jobs. 

I The Commission carefully reviews affirmative action plans to assure that 
\ey are comprehensive, fair, and lawful. 



What is 

"Affirmative Action'? 



Serving Individuals 



Over five thousand individuals come to the MCAD each year seeking information and assistance. Approximately ; 
two thousand people file complaints. The following are excerpts from actual complaints filed with the Commission.' 




"/ was the only black salesperson employed by the company. A few days i 
after I was hired the store manager complimented me on the job I was do \ 
ing. Two weeks later I was told I was being laid off because 'business was 
bad. ' But only a few days before, two new people, both white, were hirec 
as sales people. And they weren't laid off. " 

Result: predetermination settlement 
with severance pay, June, 19! 



"On April 12, 1979, I was told that my office would be closed and I waul 
be terminated from my position as district manager in two weeks. I beliei 
I was terminated because I am 63. I have been a district manager since 
1957. When the company closed two other district offices this year, it 
found new positions for the two district managers. They are both under 
40." 



Result: predetermination settlemer 
with financial compensation, May, 19! 



"On April 17, 1979, I was fired from my cashier's position. During the 
eighteen months I had worked at the store, I had three different supervise 
and had no difficulties with any of them. About a month ago a new supe 
visor came aboard, and the very first day I met him he told me I was fire^ 
The only reason he gave was that I was 'not his kind of people. ' I asked 
him if it was because of my religion and because I am a woman, and he 
said, 'Yes. ' A customer standing nearby told me she heard the whole thin^ 
and would be a witness if needed. " 

Result: predetermination settlemer 
with severance pay, June, 19 



"On December 18, 1978, I completed my application for renting the apar 
ment and gave the real estate company a deposit. They turned down my 
application the next day because I have a child. I filed a complaint with 
MCAD the same day and on December 28th, the real estate company 
decided to rent me the apartment. " 

Result: predetermination settlemei 
with rental of unit, December, 19 



'As illustrated on p. 14, each complainant must make a formal written "complaint" statement of his or her pro- 
blem. The excerpts on this page are taken directly from complaints in actual cases, occasionally edited very sligl^ 
to clarify meaning. 



4 



Serving the Community 



Companies, local governments, institutions and organizations of many kinds wish to comply with state and 
deral anti-discrimination laws. This compliance is required as a condition of a federal grant or a contract received by 
city or town or a business. A record of compliance can be of critical importance when a federal grant or contract 
ings in the balance. Also, for legal, moral and economic reasons, affirmative action programs and non- 
scriminatory policies and practices are initiated and adopted by organizations as part of their normal way of doing 
isiness. 

The MCAD helps organizations through educational efforts and technical assistance. We also have the respon- 
?ility to issue complaints and negative reports when the laws are being violated. Here are some recent instances 
hich illustrate our work with organizations: 

he City of Pittsfield 

The MCAD helped assure that the City of Pittsfield would continue 

receive in excess of 15 million dollars in federal assistance by working 
rough a Memorandum of Agreement which mandated changes in the 
ity's employment practices. Pittsfield is one of over 100 cities and towns 

the Commonwealth to have entered into such an agreement. 

he City of Boston 

In mid-1977 the City of Boston signed a Comprehensive Memoran- 
im of Agreement with MCAD, which mandated specific affirmative 
medies in the areas of housing, employment, and contract compliance, 
be Agreement required the city to establish an Office of Fair Housing, to 
sure equal housing opportunity throughout the city; a compliance en- 
rcement unit to monitor minority hiring on city construction projects and 
I assist minority business. In city employment, the affirmative action pro- 
am has resulted in a net increase of over 460 minorities and 430 women 
nployed by the City during the past three years. This record has been 
:hieved with fewer than 300 persons being added to the total City 
lyroll. 

An increasingly effective rate of performance in each of these three 
eas is needed if the City of Boston is to continue to receive its share of 
deral grants. 

lew Bedford Employers 

On May 16, 1979, the New Bedford Advisory Council and the New 
?dford Area Chamber of Commerce organized a one-day seminar on 
scrimination law and affirmative action. The seminar was jointly spon- 
)red by local civic and business organizations and was specially designed 
> meet the needs of personnel managers, educators, realtors, and bankers, 
■cent court decisions and legislative changes have increased both the need 
^d the importance of the advisory councils' activities, and the conduct of 
le seminars across the state is consistent with the Commission's mission of 
"oviding technical assistance and information to private industry as a 
"eventive measure against noncompliance with anti-discrimination laws. 

eir Associations 

The Legal Division of the MCAD maintains a continuous public 
•caking program in order to update and clarify new laws and regulations 
r both attorneys and personnel administrators of employers subject to 
Massachusetts anti-discrimination laws. Among last year's activities were 
ograms for the labor law sections of both the Massachusetts and Boston 
ir Associations. 




;ityo 



FIK£ D£PAIITM£B 
STATIC 




5 



A Long History 



More Than a Century Has Passed 

Massachusetts has been a forerunner in the fight against 
discriminatory practices. More than a century has passed since the Com- 
monwealth took its first step against discrimination. In 1855, six years 
before the Civil War, the General Court (the state legislature) passed a lav\ 
to prohibit "any bias on account of race, color, or religious opinions of thi 
applicant or scholar in the public school system."^ Ten years later, the 
General Court enacted the first state law in the country that outlawed 
discrimination in public accommodations. In bold language the law states 
that: 

No distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of color or 
race shall be lawful in any licensed inn, in any public place of amuse 
ment, public conveyance or public meeting in this Commonwealth.^ 



Employment: "No Irish Need Apply" 

Although Massachusetts may have been one of the first states to pro 
hibit discrimination in public education and public accommodations, 
discrimination in employment was not only legal but common practice in 
Massachusetts well into the twentieth century. 

WANTED — A aeamBtrees, thoroughly ac- 
quainted with the Wheeier & Wilson ft«wtnx Ma- 
chine, end rorap«t«iit to flnlsh dresses. Brookliae. 
(ftKx) recummeDdatloos as to character aad capacity 
lirnmnded. Postlvely do Irish need apply. Call at 214 
WsishlugtOD street, comer of Biunmer street. 

— trom the BusfoH Daily Evening Ttanvripl , 1868. 

"No Irish Need Apply" was as common in late 19th century employ- 
ment advertisements as "Equal Opportunity Employer" is today. Howeve 
at that time there was no law in Massachusetts to prevent it. Many first 
and second generation Americans were not hired simply because of their 
national origin or were denied access to better jobs. In spite of the laws 
passed since those times, discrimination still exists. 

The First "MCAD": 

The Massachusetts Fair Employment Practice 
Commission 

In 1944, a special committee of the state legislature was formed to in- 
vestigate discrimination in employment in Massachusetts. Many Massa- 
chusetts legislators and their families had themselves experienced job 
discrimination as first generation Americans in the early years of the twen 
tieth century. From personal experience they knew what it meant to be 
discriminated against. The Special Committee recommended this importa 
law, which was passed in 1946 by the General Court: 

'Massachusetts Acts and Resolves, 1855, Ch. 256, Sec. 1. 

^Massachusetts Statute 1865, Ch. 277; Laws of Massachusetts. 1864-65, at 650. 

6 



It is hereby declared the public policy of the Commonwealth that it is 
necessary to protect and safeguard the right and opportunity of in- 
habitants of this Commonwealth to obtain, hold and continue in the 
unabridged enjoyment and benefit of gainful employment without 
discrimination or abridgement because of race, religion, color, na- 
tional origin or ancestry. It is likewise recognized that both justice and 
public interest demand a policy to give to persons of equal ability, 
regardless of race, religion, color, national origin or ancestry, fair and 
equal opportunity to obtain and to hold gainful employment, and for 
advancement therein.^ 

It was also clear that an enforcement agency was needed. In 
stablishing the Fair Employment Practices Commission, Massachusetts 
)ecame the third state, preceded only by New York and New Jersey (1945), 
create an agency to enforce civil rights legislation. The primary func- 
ions of the new agency were "to receive, investigate and pass upon com- 
ilaints alleging discrimination in employment because of race, color, 
eligious creed, national origin or ancestry."^ The Commission was directed 
|o "endeavor to eliminate the unlawful employment practice complained 
if, by conference, conciliation and persuasion."^ Offending employers 
/ere to be ordered to "cease and desist" and to take affirmative action in 
sdressing their discriminatory acts. The name of the Commission was 
hanged to the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination 
VICAD) in 1950. 



rhe MCAD in the 60s and 70s 

Since 1946, the responsibilities of the MCAD have been greatly 
nlarged to cover not only discrimination in employment and public ac- 
ommodations but also in housing, credit, and education. The categories 
f people that the MCAD serves now includes people between the ages of 
D and 65, women or men discriminated against because of their sex, han- 
icapped people in public accommodations, persons with children in public 
nd private housing, welfare recipients in housing, and pregnant women in 
inployment benefits. These jurisdictional changes are the result of new 
|Ws and new court decisions in the field of civil rights, both at the federal 
"id the state levels. 

t During this same period of expanding responsibilities, the MCAD's 
iork load increased dramatically. In the eighteen years between November 
'46 and December 1964, the MCAD processed 4,865 complaints of all 
pes. In the seventies," the number of complaints has averaged about 
700 a year — six times the average armual caseload of all the 
|Ommission's first eighteen years. Also, in the early years of the Commis- 
on the complaints focused on discrimination against blacks. In the 70s, 
|)wever, the nature of complaints broadened to include significant addi- 
)nal categories in greater numbers, reflecting the changing focus of anti- 
i5crimination legislation. 




GOV. FIJRCOLO has 

reappointed Mrs. Mil- 
dred H. M a h o n e y 
(above), of Winchester 
as chairman of the Mas* 
sachusetts Commission 
Against Discrimination. 
She has been a eommifl< 
sion member since 1946. 

—from the Boston Sunday Advertiser, 
September 14, 1958. 

Mildred H. Mahoney 

First Commission Chairman 

She served from 1946 to 1964. 



■ssachusetts General Laws 1946, Ch. 368, Sec. 4. 

i. 

i. 

ed on 12,914 complaints filed 1971 through 1978. 



Reorganization 



"There shall be a commission. . 

As a result of the major increases in jurisdiction and workload, it | 
became apparent in the early 1970s that some major changes were 
necessary if the MCAD was to carry out effectively its broadened respon- 
sibilities. In particular, a major backlog of over 4,000 cases for only 26 fielij 
representatives to handle had built up, and it was clear that the direction c 
the Commission's activities would require full-time Commissioners (the 
MCAD had only part-time Commissioners during the first three decades c 
its existence). ; 

In October, 1976, the legislature passed a bill reorganizing the agency ' 
Chapter 463, which begins 'There shall be a Commission," provided for 
three full-time Commissioners and required the agency to improve its 
management practices and reduce "the present backlog of pending cases." 




On March 7, 1977, after an extensive, statewide selection process, 
Jane C. Edmonds, Alex Rodriguez, and Samuel Stonefield were sworn in 
as the MCAD's first full-time Commissioners. Based on a review of past 
practices and current conditions, and assisted by a professional trained sta 
and numerous advisors from all segments of the community, the "Com- 
missioners 3" implemented a series of important changes, emphasizing im- 
proved management accountability and aggressive enforcement activity. 

New Management Techniques That Have Set 
the Standard 

When the new commissioners took office the MCAD had a case in- 
ventory of over 4,000 cases and an average processing time of 18-24 
months. Because of the legislative mandate and the clear importance of 
timely processing, the Commissioners implemented new procedures and ij 
troduced more effective management techniques. Within a year, dramatic 
changes had occurred, and the average time for processing a case had bee 
reduced to four months. 

8 



The Commission also developed comprehensive guidelines and stan- 
dard procedures for dealing with cases, to assure that cases are handled 
Fairly, impartially, and expeditiously. The Commission also invested heavi- 
ly in training the staff to use these procedures and guidelines effectively. 

Efficiency has been given major emphasis at the MCAD since the 
-eorganization, and it has paid off in dollars and cents as well as in better 
service delivery. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sup- 
ports a significant proportion of MCAD employment cases, and has in- 
:reased funding in accordance with MCAD's increased productivity. 
' The new management practices of the MCAD include regular evalua- 
tion of management processes and personnel performance. And by evalua- 
ion, the Commission does not mean to measure its efforts against global, 
inmeasurable goals (e.g., "to improve the condition of humanity") but 
ather to identify specific, measureable goals which can be objectively 
jvaluated, goals such as 90-day processing for investigative proceedings 
,md 180-day processing through final agency proceedings. 

Today the MCAD's management techniques are being used as a 
nodel for other states to use in improving their own practices, and they 
lave drawn strong approval from the Governor. 

Major Accomplishments Since Reorganization 

A Summary 

• A total of $ 1 ,256,759 in federal anti-discnmination dollars brought into Massachusetts. March 1 977 
to June 1979. 

I • A total of $4 1 million dollars in federal grants saved for Massachusetts cities and towns. May 1 977 
through June 1 979. 

• Over 100 Massachusetts cities and towns have signed Memoranda of Agreement with the MCAD 
to assure their compliance with federal and state civil rights laws to continue their eligibility for 
federal funding. May 1977 through June 1979. 

• Improved procedures for investigations were adopted. July 1 978. 

• A computerized case management system was introduced reducing the time it takes to find out the 
status of a case from a matter of days or hours to a matter of minutes. September 1 977. 

• New management practices reduced the case backlog by over 50%. October 1 976 to present. 

• New emphasis on preventing discrimination initiated, by offering seminars and technical assistance 
to employers to help them comply with the laws. March 1 977 to present. 

• Statewide Advisory Board of the MCAD and eleven regional Advisory Councils reactivated. March 
! 1977. 

• Since 1 976, settlement rate up to 23% of total cases. 

• Damage awards up to $601,807 in 1979. 

• Massachusetts Discrimination Law Reporter published. 



jieducing the Case Backlog 

A major goal of the reorganization was to reduce the very large and 
rowing backlog of unresolved cases. In 1971, the MCAD had 2035 open 
ases; by 1975 the number had risen to 4310. Since 1976, on the other 
and, the new procedures have caused a steady decline in the case inven- 
,)ry: down to 3286 in 1977 and 2,237 by November of 1979. 

Reducing the backlog has been made more difficult because there has 
?en no sharp decline in the number of complaints. But since 1976, the 
•imber of cases closed each year has consistently been greater than the 
jimber of new complaints filed. By spring of 1980, the MCAD plans to 
Iter a post-backlog era and to remain current with all active cases. 



"/ am pleased to report that MCAD is 
demonstrating the gains to be reaped 
from the proper application of 
business methods. For example, 
MCAD's Civil Rights Review unit 
coordinates both the state and federal 
law so effectively that red tape has 
been eliminated. Communities con- 
sulting MCAD for aid and/ or advice 
in local civil rights problems can 
benefit from what the MCAD calls 
'one-stop service. ' The long-range ef- 
fect of this good management is to en- 
sure that the Massachusetts taxpayer 
will continue to receive their fair share 
of federal funds. " 

Governor Edward J. King 
June 21, 1979 speech in Worcester 
to the Federal Regional Council 



MCAD Complaints Filed and Closed 

Calendar 1971 through 1978 



2649f 



2500 



2472- 



2182 



2000 



1872 



1600 



1500 



1360 



1000 



1017 



500 



526 



1286 



689 



1213 



1925 



741 



1551 



1709 



r43J 



1971 
□I Filed 



1972 1973 
Closed 



1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 



The Case Management 
Process— How It Works 



The management experts and the computer specialists for the Commis- 
sion have come up wtih an efficient way of tracking a case through the 
system. 

MCAD employees from the Commissioners themselves to the clerical 
staff keep daily records on their "MCAD Daily Activity Form." All the possible 
events that could take place while the MCAD is handling a case are listed on 
the form with a numerical code for each of the 70 possible events, such as 
"complaint filed" or "investigative plan done" or "hearing scheduled." 
Employees mark the code for the event they completed on their daily form. 

The case management system allows ready access to case status infor- 
mation and gives Commission managers valuable information about how 
cases are handled. For example, a bottleneck report identifies stalled cases 
that have exceeded the time frame for a particular step in the process. With | 
this information Commission managers can expedite these cases, evaluate th(' 
performance of Commission employees and assess the efficiency of their 
management methods. j 



10 



lEmphasis on Voluntary Settlement 

I Both the original law and the reorganization legislation required the 
;MCAD to attempt to obtain prompt, voluntary settlement of complaints. 
iThe Commission is pleased to report that there has been a steady upward 
trend in the percentage of cases reaching early resolution. 



Cases Settled Before Determination 





Number of 






Predetermination 


As a % of 




Settlements 


total cases 


1977 


186 


7.0% 


1978 


303 


I2.I 


1979 


358 


23.0 



Expanded Sources of Funding 

Since 1976 the MCAD has been aggressively seeking federal dollars. 
The Commission's funding from Massachusetts has increased minimally 
since 1975, but the Agency has been successful in its efforts to supplement 
state funding. With grants from the Equal Employment Opportunity Com- 
mission and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the 
Commission has been able to support new projects and ongoing activities. 



MCAD Funding 



FY 


Total 


State 


Federal 


1975 


$1,103,777 


$978,777 


$125,000 


1976 


916,175 


731,175 


1 85,000 


1977 


1,105.773 


785,464 


320,309 


1978 


1,039,384 


795,464 


244,920 


1979 


1,666,530 


975,000 


691,530 



Nlew Emphasis on Public Education 

One of the benefits to the Commonwealth of having full-time com- 
■nissioners is their availability to talk to local officials, and educational, 
business, and industrial leaders about compliance with anti-discrimination 
aws and ways of instituting affirmative action plans. The commissioners 
eel this educational work is of the utmost importance. By helping these 
eaders with their planning and encouraging them to make non- 
iiscrimination a basic ingredient in their decisions, the chances of preven- 
mg discrimination from occurring are greatly enhanced. 

The Commissioners find many forums for making the public aware of 
ivhat the MCAD does, why it exists, and how it can help. The three com- 
nissioners have appeared on numerous radio and television programs, and 
)articipate in educational programs with audiences as diverse as high 
chool students, lawyers, bankers, nurses and college administrators. 



Predetermination Settlements 

(as % of total cases) 



1977 7% 



1978 12.1% 



1979 23.0% 




In an effort to better reach its large target population, in January, 
1979, the Commission reinstituted its use of television and radio. With the 
help and cooperation of television and radio stations across the state, 
public service announcements were broadcast in Spanish and English. 
These "spots," as they are commonly called, informed the public of its 
rights under the Commonwealth's anti-discrimination laws. 



National Recognition 



The MCAD Management Information System is considered to be a model 
nationwide. Requests for information about it come from agencies and 
organizations across the United States. EEOC in Washington is training 
anti-discrimination agencies in other states to implement MIS systems like 
the one used at the MCAD, 

The Memorandum of Agreement process which was developed by the 
Civil Rights Review Unit has been accepted by the U.S. Department of the 
Interior as a determining factor in the award of land and water conserva- 
tion grants. 

New in 1979, the MCAD's Massachusetts Discrimination Law Reporter 

gives Commission decisions a wider audience. The Reporter is published 
and distributed on a subscription basis by a private firm without expense 
to the MCAD; it is the first such state law reporter in the country. 



A Record of Major 
Federal Grant Awards 



1 977 — Management Information System Grant (EEOC) $ 7 1 ,559 

1 977 — Deferral Project (EEOC) 1 28,750 

1 977 — Civil Rights (A-95) Review Grant (HUD) 1 20.000 

1 978 — Deferral Project (EEOC) 244,920 

1979 — Deferral Project Amendment (to 1 978 contract) 72,540 
1 979 — Deferral Project (EEOC) 469,000 
1 979 — Administrative Hearing Project (EEOC) 1 49,990 
Total federal grants March 1 977, through June 1 979 $ 1 ,256,759 



Focus on Employment 

The composition of the complaints filed with the MCAD has changes 
substantially in recent years. Recent figures show that, compared to 1970, 
matters of race now make up about one-third of all complaints filed, com- 
pared to nearly three-fifths ten years ago. Another trend since 1970 has 
been the increasing number of complaints involving employment 
discrimination. 



12 



Discrimination Cliarged in Cases Filed witii the MCAD 




Areas of Discrimination in Cases Filed with the MCAD 




5.5% 



^few Laws to Enforce 

The impact of civil rights legislation and court decisions of the 1960s 
md 1970s has made civil rights law enforcement much more complex. The 
rend has been towards expanding the classes of people, as well as the 
ypes of activities protected by the law. For example, only in 1964 did 
vomen begin to receive legal protection. Blind persons were added in 1972; 
)eople with arrest records in 1972; people with previous mental illness in 
|.973. Jurisdiction over credit was added in 1973. 

The commissioners and their staff keep informed about new federal 
ind state legislation and court decisions in the field of anti-discrimination, 
|iot only to assist the complainants in the new protected classes, but also to 
•rovide technical assistance to the employers, landlords, banks, univer- 
ities, cities and towns trying to comply with the new legislation. 



The Complaint Process 



Four Things You Should 
Know About the MCAD 
Complaint Process 



Impartiality: The MCAD is an impartial, objective investigating agency. 
We are not "for" or "against" anyone or any side. Our investigators ar 
neutral and professional, and their decisions are based on facts and 
evidence. If and when a determination of probable cause is made, the 
Commission may provide, through the General Counsel, an attorney to 
conciliate and to present the case at a public hearing. The complainant 
may be represented by an attorney of his or her own choosing or by a 
Commission attorney. 

Timing: Massachusetts Law requires that all investigations proceed pro- 
mptly. Everyone benefits from a prompt decision; everyone loses by 
delay. To keep cases moving, we impose certain deadlines which must be 
observed. 

Settlements: We encourage and actively work to achieve settlements. 
We want to help both parties achieve a voluntary resolution to the com- 
plaint whenever possible. 

Retaliation: Massachusetts Law, M.G.L. Chapter 15 IB, Section 4(4), 
specifically prohibits any retaliation against any person who has filed a 
complaint, participated in any investigation or otherwise opposed alleged- 
ly discriminatory practices, and the MCAD strongly enforces this law. 
Any harassment or action adverse to the complainant or witnesses must 
be carefully and completely avoided. 



The Case of "John Smith" 

This case is not an actual one. It is designed to show all the possible 
steps in presenting a case. With the Commission's current emphasis on ear- 
ly resolution, few cases go through all these steps. 

John Smith is 50. He felt that he had been fired from his job because of his 
age. He had seen articles about discrimination in the newspaper, and he 
thought that he might himself be a victim. Smith called the MCAD to find 
out how to file a complaint. He was asked to visit one of the Commission 
offices and to bring this information with him: 

1. A list of names, titles, business addresses and telephone numbers of 
those charged with having committed an alleged unlawful 
discriminatory act, the names of witnesses if any, and any copies of 
disciplinary actions or termination notices he had received. 

2. A summary of the specific acts of alleged unlawful discrimination, in- 
cluding dates. 

3. The details of any financial losses suffered as a result of the alleged 
discriminatory act. 

Intake | 

The next day. Smith arrived at the 1 Ashburton Place office of the MCAC 
with the above information in hand. An "intake" worker then discussed 
Smith's complaint with him. j 
Smith said that he had been fired from his sales job because of his age (50) 
The intake worker wrote down this list of facts: 

1. I was employed by the Book Company as a salesperson in June, 1973. 

2. In January of 1978 my supervisor asked me if I had considered a chang«| 
of career. He suggested that I look into a management position with 
another firm. He said that I was getting to be "over the hill." 

3. On April 10, 1979, I was asked by my supervisor to leave my position. 



14 



^bout being fired. Smith said: 

I have been subjected to unequal terms and conditions of employment 
lecause of my age (50). I have never sold below my quota. At least two 
•ther employees were asked to resign after they had reached the age of 50. 
Therefore, I charge the Book Company with unlawful discrimination." 

nvestigation 

)nce the MCAD had determined that Smith's complaint was in their 
arisdiction, a list of questions, called "interrogatories," was sent to Smith's 
mployer (the respondent). The employer was asked to respond to the 
negations in the complaint and state the reasons for firing Smith from his 
oh and provide factual information on their employment practices and 
reatment of similar employees. 

Tie interrogatories were analyzed and discussed with the complainant. At 
bis stage if an investigator believes that there is a reasonable basis for set- 
lement, a Settlement Conference would be convened. That didn't happen 
1 this case. Also, at this stage, the investigator prepares an investigative 
ilan, detailing the areas of further investigation, including witnesses and 
locuments. 

act-Finding Conference and Attempted Resolution 

iS the next step, a Fact-Finding Conference was scheduled. In addition to 
He complainant and respondent, the Commission specified other people 
^ho would be required to attend along with documents related to the case. 
d the Fact-Finding Conference, an impartial investigator asked Smith, his 
mployer, and witnesses questions that she hoped would determine 
whether age caused Smith to lose his job. Although issues were clarified, 
o settlement could be achieved during the conference, 
ased on the evidence submitted at the Fact-Finding Conference, the In- 
jestigator felt that a finding of Probable Cause could be recommended to 
le Commissioner who would be assigned to make a ruling on Smith's 
ase. The evidence indicated that Smith had been fired only because his 
jtnployer thought that a 50 year old man was too old to be a salesperson. 
ince no further investigation was necessary after the Fact-Finding Con- 
!rence, the Commissioner was able to make a determination quickly. A 
tobable Cause Finding was made in Smith's case. 

jjiother conciliation effort was made to find a solution acceptable to both 
mith and his employer. But Smith wanted his job back, and his employer 
jfused. Neither party was willing to compromise, and as a result the case 
j^as certified to public hearing. 

ublic Hearing 

mith's case was then presented at a Public Hearing before a Hearing Com- 
lissioner. The public hearing is a formal adjudicatory proceeding with 
oth sides represented by counsel. The respondent was found to be guilty 
f age discrimination. Since age was not a bona fide occupational qualifica- 
on reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the Book Company, 
le Company was ordered to reinstate Smith with back pay from April, 
)79. 



Commission Rules of Procedure require 
that the answers to interrogatories be 
submitted within 20 days. 



23% of MCAD cases closed in 1979 
were settled before discrimination on 
the merits (Probable Cause or No 
Probable Cause Finding). 



"Probable Cause" means sufficient 
evidence to show a likelihood of suc- 
cess during further conciliation or as a 
public hearing. 



If a Lack of Probable Cause Finding is 
made, the complainant has 10 days in 
which to appeal. 



The complainant or respondent against 
whom a finding is made, has the right 
to appeal the decision to the full Com- 
mission and to the Supreme Court on 
the basis of the record established at 
the Commission proceedings. 



15 



What Does 

"Settling a Case" Mean? 



The MCAD emphasizes the importance of settlement at every stage of 
the complaint process; the Commission is ready and willing to work with 
both parties to reach a mutually acceptable resolution, and will bring people 
together as soon as possible to discuss settlement terms. A settlement made 
prior to a Commission determination is not an admission of guilt or liability 
and results in a formal closing of the case. 

A case can be settled when both the employer and the complainant (the 
person making the complaint) make an agreement which the Commission ap 
proves. A settlement may occur at any point in the case process and can be 
suggested to both parties by a representative of the MCAD or by one party to 
the other. A representative of the MCAD reviews settlements to see that they 
are fair. 

One kind of settlement that occurs often is a cash settlement. In the case 
of an illegal dismissal from a job, the cash settlement may constitute 
severance pay. In the case of unegual pay for egual work, the settlement 
could result in a retroactive pay raise. From July 1 , 1 978, through June 30, 
1979, complainants at the MCAD received $601,807 in damages. 

Another kind of settlement involves the job itself with the complainant 
receiving the job or promotion which was originally denied. 



Predetermination Settlements 

These are some examples of cases recently settled with the assistance 
of MCAD staff. 

"In November 1978, I was hired as the only woman on a four person 
research team. I am being paid $12,500 a year. A man hired five months jj 
before me performing the same job as I am is receiving $2,000 per year j 
more than I am. My qualifications at the time I was hired were superior to t 
his at the time he was hired. " 

Result: settled with back pay and salary adjustment, March, 1979 

"/ am a woman who was a candidate for a product coordinator position. 
The Manager of Industrial Relations had personally selected me as a likely 
candidate and submitted my name and qualifications to the Manager of the' 
Department. The interview went well, and I was encouraged. After much ! 
evasion and delay I was told a man from outside the company had been 
hired. People told me that the department manager would only hire a man 
for a position like that. " 

Result: settled with appointment to equivalent position, June, 1979 

"On fanuary 29, 1979, I was denied a drafting position with an engineering 
corporation. I believe I was denied this position because I am black. I was 
told a grade point average of 3.0 or better was all that was needed for the 
job. My average is 3.64, and the white person hired for the job had a gradt 
average below 3.0 in the same program. " 

Result: settled with lump sum settlement, June, 1979 



16 



irhe MCAD Today 



Today, the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination is an 
tgency with proven procedures, a dedicated professional staff, active ad- 
isory boards, and a solid source of funding. In the current fiscal year 
FY/79) the Commonwealth appropriated $975,000 for the operation of the 
Commission's four offices. Those offices, located in Boston, Springfield, 
Vorcester and New Bedford, are staffed by 57 state-funded employees plus 
ji average of 10-15 student interns and volunteers. 

The chart shows the organization and relationships of the MCAD, its 
idvisory boards, and five divisions. 



MCAD Organization 



Electorate 



Statewide 
Advisory Council 







Governor 







MCAD 
"Commissioners 



1 1 Regional 
Advisory Councils 



Administrative Services 



Legal 



Case Control 



Investigations 

• Intake 

• Current 

• Backlog 



Public Sector 

• Housing & Public 

Accommodations 

• Public Employment 

• Contract Compliance 

• A-95 Review 



rhe MCAD Commissioners 



; The Commission itself is composed of three full-time commissioners ap- 
pointed by the Governor. They serve 3-year staggered terms to maintain 
continuity in policy and direction of the agency. Each of the commissioners 
has a geographic responsibility for a particular portion of the state, as 
prescribed by the 1976 reorganization legislation. As a group, they decide 
matters of basic policy and guide the operation of the agency. 

When she was appointed. Chairman Edmonds seized the unique op- 
portunity offered by the reorganization and under her direction the team 
management approach was begun. She recognized that if the commis- 
'>ioners worked together as a team, they could increase their effectiveness 
30th inside and outside of the agency. 

For the first and possibly last time three full-time commissioners were 
appointed at once. The new commissioners had complementary interests 
and abilities, but each focused on a special area of particular interest and 
expertise. 

Commission Chairman Edmonds, a graduate of Radcliffe College and 
Boston College Law School, in addition to performing the functions of an 
Investigating and Hearing Commissioner, as might be expected, concen- 
trates her efforts heavily in the general administration of the Commission's 
programs. 

I As a former elected official, Mrs. Edmonds has maintained a major 
involvement in the MCAD's civil rights review program which entails the 
negotiation of Memoranda of Agreement v^th local elected officials for the 





18 



purpose of the development and implementation of affirmative action pro- 
grams as a means of ensuring eligibility for federal funding. The 
Chairman's political experience has served her well during sensitive 
negotiating sessions. Mrs. Edmonds is the principal spokesperson for the 
Commission and is generally responsible for MCAD activities in the 
Greater Boston area. 

Commissioner Stonefield, a graduate of Dartmouth College and Har- i 
vard Law School, is an attorney from Springfield, Massachusetts. He is 
responsible for the Western Massachusetts activities both in case processing 
and civil rights reviews, and also oversees the legal and legislative work of 
the Commission. 

Commissioner Rodriguez, a graduate of Goddard College and a 
former Loeb Fellow at Harvard University, has a business management 
background and has focused his attention on the development of the 
MCAD's case processing and management information systems. He is 
responsible for the Commission's activities in Southeastern Massachusetts 
and has also led' the Commission's policy development program. 



Advisors Across the State 

The MCAD now has a strong network of advisors in regional coun- 
cils across the entire Commonwealth. There also is a Statewide Advisory 
Board which coordinates the activities of the regional councils, reviews the 
implementation of the Commission's programs and policies, and advises 
both the Commission and the Governor of the Commonwealth on matters 
of policy affecting the Commission. The Board is appointed by the Gover- 
nor and represents the regional councils and interest groups affected by 
Commission actions. Board members serve without compensation. Current 
members are listed inside the front cover. 

There are regional advisory councils based in: Boston, Fall River, 
Fitchburg, Lawrence, Lynn, New Bedford, North Dartmouth, North Wey- 
mouth, Pittsfield, Springfield, Worcester. 




The eleven regional Advisory Councils include representatives of 
owners and brokers of residential property; major lending and credit in- ^ 
stitutions; major private employers; a local personnel or civil service ad- 
ministrator; local post-secondary educational institutions; local labor 
organizations; minority racial, ethnic and linguistic groups; women; elderly 
and handicapped persons; and recipients of public assistance. These coun- 
cils advise the Commission on matters of public policy, inform the Com- j 
mission on local discrimination problems, and conduct seminars in their 
communities for employers, lawyers, realtors, bankers, etc. Another exam- 
ple of community and advisory council working together is the volunteer 
office in Pittsfield where the local C.A.P. office. Action for Opportunity, 
takes complaints, types them up and sends them to the Springfield Office 
of MCAD to be processed and investigated. 



MCAD Divisions 

The MCAD has five major divisions, each with its own manager: 
Case Control, Legal, Investigative, and Public Sector, and Administrative 
Services Division. The division heads make up the Commission's internal 
management task force. They meet together regularly both as a group and 
with the commissioners to participate in administrative and policy develop- 
ment decisions. 

Case Control Division 

Established in 1977, the Case Control Division is the planning and 
monitoring arm of the MCAD and is responsible for providing monthly 
and weekly information and recommendations concerruiig management of 
the agency's case load. Under the direction of MCAD's Deputy Director of 
Adntinistration, Case Control is in charge of the computerized case track- 
ing and management information system (MIS). By centralizing case infor- 
mation, the MIS has reduced the length of time to respond to case status 
inquiries from hours or days to minutes. The MIS breaks down the 
MCAD case operation into over 70 measurable transactions, which enables 
the Case Control staff to identify bottlenecks in the case processing pro- 
cedure. As a result, the MCAD is better able to monitor its own perfor- 
mance. Monthly reports detailing case intake and progress in case proces- 
sing are circulated by the Case Control Division as a continuing progress 
report. Currently the Case Control Division is using the output of the MIS 
to identify additional ways to increase the efficiency of case management. 

Legal Division 

The Legal Division serves as in-house counsel to the Commission. The 
duties of the General Counsel and staff attorneys are varied and include 
advising investigators on complex investigations, reviewing investigative 
recommendations to the commissioners, attempting conciliation after a 
Probable Cause finding, and litigating where conciliation fails. Commission 
attorneys also represent the Commission in all state and federal courts. 

The Legal Division is proud of its record. The Supreme Judicial Court 
sustained all three Commission decisions presented by the Legal Division in 
1978. Significant among these was the Supreme Judicial Court's concur- 
rence with the Commission's position that pregnancy-related disabilities 
must be treated similarly to all other temporary disabilities. Congress has 
since adopted the same view. 

In 1979, the Legal Division received a special federal grant to help 
eliminate the backlog of cases waiting for public hearing. Another innova- 
tion is the publication of all Commission decisions in an official 
Massachusetts Discrimination Law Reporter. The Commission is the only 
anti-discrimination agency to have such a reporter. It is prepared, pub- 
lished and distributed without any exper\se to the Commission. 

Administrative Services Division 

The Administrative Services Division is responsible for providing ad- 
ministrative support for the Commission's operational divisions, including 
personnel, budget and general office management. Support services are 
also provided to the State Advisory Board and the eleven regional ad- 
visory councils. 

Public information is also a responsibility of this division and, in 
keeping with the Commission's commitment to public education, maintains 
a speakers' bureau, schedules television, radio and other public speaking 
engagements for the commissioners and staff, and arranges for radio and 
:elevision public service announcements. 




Jeffrey J. Binder, Director 
Legal Division 




Virginia W. Parks, Director 
Administrative Services Division 



19 




John A. Ramos, Director 
Division of Investigations 



EMvision of Investigations 

The Division responds to complaints of unlawful discrimination in 
private sector employment and education. It also has investigators in the 
regional offices in Worcester, Springfield, and New Bedford. The in- 
vestigative staff works in three units: 

• The Intake Unit meets with people who want to file complaints and 
draws up a complaint if one is appropriate. In employment cases, this 
unit initiates the investigation by sending interrogatories to the 
employer. 

• The Current Unit investigates recently filed private sector cases, refer- 
ring them to the Legal Division for conciliation following a finding of 
Probable Cause. 

• The Backlog Unit works from the older cases still on file, from the 
oldest towards the present. It is the responsibility of this unit to con- 
tinue to implement the legislative mandate to continue to reduce the 
backlog in the Commission's case inventory. 

In 1978 the Division developed the first comprehensive Investigative 
Guidelines to assist in maintaining standard investigative procedures. In ad- 
dition, the Investigative staff has had formal training in investigative and 
settlement techniques. Although it is achieving its goal of eliminating case 
backlog, the Investigative Division has continued to keep current with 
MCAD's incoming cases. 



The EEOC Agreement 



Some of the Commonwealth's employment discrimination laws are 
similar to the Title Vll of the 1 964 federal Civil Rights Act. The Equal Employ- 
ment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency charged with enforcing 
federal civil rights, is the federal equivalent of the MCAD. People who want 
to file a complaint against an employer are entitled to file at both the MCAD 
and the EEOC. 

To avoid duplication when cases are investigated, the EEOC and the 
MCAD annually enter into an agreement to allocate the responsibility for all 
complaints filed in Massachusetts. Complaints filed with MCAD are 
automatically filed with the EEOC and vice versa, with the use of joint intake 
forms to save time and effort. Thus a complainant's rights under both state 
and federal law are preserved. The workload of Massachusetts cases is divid- 
ed between MCAD and EEOC, and the Commission is reimbursed by EEOC 
for successfully completed investigations. 




Roger C. MacLeod, Director 
Public Sector Division 



Public Sector Division 

Among the duties of the Public Sector Division is the obligation to in- 
vestigate all public sector employment, housing, credit and public accom- 
modation complaints. But it is also a discrimination prevention arm of the 
MCAD. By working with local officials in cities and towns to meet equal 
opportunity requirements in housing, employment, and contract com- 
pliance, the Division both prevents possible future discrimination com- 
plaints and supports the communities in their requests for federal and state 
funds. 

The Division has four special function operating units: 

• The Housing and Public Accommodations Unit handles complaints of 
discrimination in housing, public accommodations and credit. 

• The Public Employment Unit handles employment discrimination in 
cases where the employer is either a state agency, a county, or one of 
the cities and towns in the Commonwealth. 

• The Contract Compliance Unit makes sure that contractors who have 
construction contracts with state agencies adhere to the requisite affir- 



20 



mative action requirements in the contracts. The unit provides 
technical assistance to cities and towns instituting contract compliance 
proceedings. 

The Civil Rights Review Unit's principal function is to enforce civil 
rights compliance within Massachusetts cities and towns in the areas of 
employment and housing and contract compliance. The Review Unit 
does not receive complaints; it tries to identify and resolve issues before 
they are litigated by working directly with cities and towns. Federal 
grant program requirements stipulate that cities and towns seeking 
federal and state money prove that they are in compliance with federal 
anti-discrimination laws. The review requirements are stated in a 
federal "A-95" regulation. 

The Review Unit gives cities and towns what one commissioner 
calls "one-stop service," helping a municipality develop and implement 
fair housing and equal employment plans and signing Memoranda of 
Agreement which commit cities and towns to develop plans to address 
identified areas of noncompliance. 

The Review Unit has gone to bat for Massachusetts cities and 
towns to help them qualify for federal money when they have a prov- 
en record of attempting to provide equal opportunity in employment, 
housing, etc. For example, the Review Unit helped save a $15 million 
fiUD grant to Pittsfield. Recently the Unit has been working with 
Lawrence to help it requalify for a $7 million grant it lost for failure to 
comply with federal law. 



Some Facts About the MCAD 



• The Commonwealth's civil rights law enforcement agency 

• Established by the General Court in 1 946 (name changed to MCAD in 1 950) 

• Major reorganization in 1976 

• Principal functions 

1 . to enforce state and federal civil rights laws 

2. to educate to forestall potential discriminatory behavior 

3. to assist individuals whose rights have been violated 

4. to aid employers, government agencies, and others in complying with the laws 

• State funding for FY 1979; $975,000 

• Federal funding for FY 1979: $691,530 

• Over 5,000 individuals seek information and assistance from the MCAD each year 

• 3 full-time Commissioners appointed by the Governor, having 3-year staggered terms 

• Commissioners have the power to: subpoena records, award damages, render final decisions 

• 73 employees (57 state funded, 16 federally supported) 

• Computer-based management information system 

• State-wide Advisory Board of 30 members 

• I 1 regional advisory councils totaling 347 members from business, government, institutions, and in- 
dependent citizens 

• MCAD offices in Boston, Worcester, Springfield, and New Bedford 

• Speakers' Bureau available for organizations 

• An agency of the Secretariat of Administration and Finance 



22 



The MCAD in 1979 



Highlights 

The 1979 fiscal year which ended in June was a particularly eventhil 
one for the MCAD. These are some of the highlights: 

New Responsibility 

As a result of the Commissioners' and constituents' active support for 
two consecutive years. Section 92A and Section 98 of Chapter 272 of the 
Massachusetts General Laws (Public Accommodations) were amended to 
include persons with physical or mental disabilities. The new amendments 
are effective January 1, 1980. 

Policy Changes 

MCAD, pursuant to its legal powers under the Governor's Code of 
Fair Practices (Executive Order 74, as amended by 116) is aggressively 
working to strengthen affirmative action in state government, including the 
Executive and Judicial branches. The Commission's goal is simple: equal 
access and equal opportunity under the law. 

New Programs 

The three Commissioners share the belief that "... justice delayed is 
justice denied." To this end the Commission has implemented a rapid 
charge processing system to assure prompt resolution of all cases. In addi- 
tion, the Commission now conducts investigative fact-finding conferences 
soon after a complaint is filed at the Commission. As a result of both pro- 
grams the average case is resolved within a 90-day period. 

Grants and Awards 

In addition to a significant increase in its annual deferral grant from 
the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Massachusetts 
Commission Against Discrimination was awarded a special agency im- 
provement grant of $149,990 from the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission. This grant, the first of its kind received by any state fair 
employment practice agency, has enabled the Massachusetts Commission 
Against Discrimination to reduce most of its public hearing backlog and 
expedite its decision writing program and improve the quality of its ad- 
ministrative decisions. 

Significant Litigation or Decisions 

Over the past year the Massachusetts Commission Against 
Discrimination has seen a significant acceleration both in the volume and 
success of its litigation. Highlights include the Supreme Judicial Court's af- 
firming all three Commission decisions presented on appeal, including 
several landmark decisions concerning pregnancy disabilities. 

Early Settlement Progress 

23.0% of all cases closed during Fiscal Year 1979 were settled before a 
determination on the merits. This rate has more than doubled since the 
present Commission was sworn into office. 

New Memoranda of Agreement 

An additional 41 Agreements, signed during the 78-79 year, brings to 
more than one hundred the number of Massachusetts communities that are 
actively developing affirmative action programs in housing, employment 
! and contract compliance. Use of Memoranda of Agreement, under the 
I Commission's civil rights review program, demonstrates the Commission's 



commitment to "one stop service," i.e., the elimination of duplication of ef- \ 
fort by federal, state and local governments. 

Public Education 

In the past fiscal year the Commission has accelerated its public 
education program by means of a Speakers' Bureau, jointly sponsored con- 
ferences with its regional advisory councils, and greatly increased use of 
television and radio public service announcements. Informational "spots" 
were broadcast statewide in several languages. | 

Organizational Change 

The Housing Unit was transferred to the Public Sector Division in 
order to assure effective coordination of housing complaint investigations 
and the development of fair housing programs by the cities and towns. 

New Management Techniques 

As part of the MCAD's reorganization, five divisions were created, 
each headed by a manager. These five managers comprise the Managemen 
Task Force and as such, have fvinctioned as an integral unit with primary 
responsibility for planning, developing and implementing Commission 
policies and programs. 

Special Recognition 

The Commission and its three Commissioners have been honored for 
their efforts in many areas during the last few years such as: the American 
Arbitration Association's annual award of recognition to each of the Com- 
missioners; the EEOC's citation by Eleanor Holmes Norton, Chair, 
recognizing MCAD for its outstanding case processing system. 

A New Training Program 

The Legal Division and the Division of Investigations began a month- 
ly in-house training program to discuss new developments and procedures. 
Topics included, but were not limited to: sexual harrassment, criminal 
records, mental illness. Supreme Judicial Court decisions, religious 
discrimination and legislation for the handicapped. 



The MCAD in Case inventory at beginning of year 2,465 

Fiscal Year 1 979 New complaints filed during year 1,768 

Cases closed during year 2,220 

Case inventory at end of year 2,013 

Percentage of pre-determination settlements 23.0% 

Monetary awards to complainants $601 ,807 

New compliance agreements 41 

Speaking engagements and training sessions 1 00 + 

Meetings of Statewide Advisory Board 6 

Total meetings of Regional Advisory Councils 1 30 

Funding 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts $975,000 

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 

1 979 Case Processing Contract 469,000 

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 

1978 (extension) Case Processing Contract 72,540 

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

Administrative Hearings Contract 1 49, 990 



Total S 1 ,666,530 




Planning for the Future 



In the Year Ahead 

Primary Commission goals for 1 980 involve the fine tuning of processes already begun. We plan to: 

• better utilize data from the Management Information System and fully computerize all non- 
employment cases 

• further reduce case processing time 

• plan and carry out more public information activities, including informational brochures and an 
audio/visual presentation 

• increase enforcement of both individual and systemic housing complaints 

«- conduct a series of seminars: one each for banks, institutions of higher education, minority business 
enterprises and for civil rights advocacy groups, on how to assist the MCAD in achieving common 
goals 

• assist in establishing, with federal, state and local agencies, a Metropolitan Fair Housing Agency for 
the Boston region 



Future Directions— the MCAD in the 1980s 



I It's not an easy task to look ahead and predict the direction of the 
igency in the future. Surely, no MCAD Commissioner of the 1950s and 
early 60s could have anticipated the rapid expansion of jurisdiction and the 
explosion of complaints that occurred in the late 60s and 70s. But some 
Tends are emerging for the 80s: 

• More New Legislation — While there will not be the surge of new legisla- 
tion of the last two decades, the jurisdiction and the responsibilities of 
equal opportunity agencies like the MCAD will continue to expand. For 
example, since the end of ¥Y 1979 the federal age limits for age 

' discrimination in employment have been raised to include people up to 
age 70. A similar amendment to state law is likely to follow. Also, the 
civil rights of disabled persons will likely be recognized in law. As a 
result of these broadened areas of jurisdiction, employers will require the 
MCAD to take a more active role in providing training and technical 
assistance to help both public and private employers to comply with the 

I new laws and to increase its enforcement efforts against parties that do 

' not comply. 




New HUD/MCAD Memorandum of Agreement — A Memorandum of 
Agreement between the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 
Development and MCAD will be implemented, providing a system for 
the dual filing and processing of housing contracts. The Commission an- 
ticipates successful negotiation of a contract with HUD for over 
$140,000 to implement the terms of the Memorandum of Agreement. 



A More Aggressive "Carrot and Stick" Approach by the Federal 
Government — As the federal government responds to complex 
economic conditions, it will pay a great deal more attention to how its 
money is spent. In the past, equal opportunity issues have been secon- 
dary considerations in the grant award process. The enforcement of 
equal opportunity conditions, demonstrated by the federal government 
in the past two years, is expected to become more stringent. 





Li 



The federal government will increasingly withhold discretionary 
grants from cities and towns, or withhold contracts from private 
employers, because of civil rights noncompliance. In Massachusetts this 
has already happened to Dedham, Stoughton and other communities. 

Commuruty groups have become more aggressive in suing the federal 
government for providing financial support to grant applicants who are 
not in full and effective compliance with civU rights requirements. For ex- 
ample, the U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development has been 
sued for awarding CDBG and UDAG monies to Boston and Chelsea; thest 
actions were irutiated by advocacy groups. Actions like these are likely to 
continue to multiply. 

In such an atmosphere, the MCAD will continue to take a stronger 
role in ensuring full compliance with equal opportimity requirements, thus 
providing greater protection for governments against the loss of federal 
funds while at the same time ensuring equal opportunity for all people. 

This can only be done by convincirrg policy makers to incorporate 
anti-discrimination and affirmative action concepts into their way of think- 
ing. Civil rights cannot be an afterthought which policy makers subscribe 
to under pressure of a law suit. It must become a part of how they do 
business. The MCAD can help that happen. 

• Government Accountability — the issue of the 80s — All levels of govern- 
ment are going to be increasingly required to account for the money 
they spend and the results they achieve. This demand is coming from 
the public, from legislative bodies and from funding agencies. Public 
sector innovations like the MCAD's Management Information System 
will have to become the way government agencies do business in the 
1980s. It is no longer enough for a goverrunent agency to do good 
works or have good intentions. It must perform efficiently and be able 
to demonstrate that it does. 

We at the MCAD have had considerable experience, and can share 
what we have learned with other parts of government. Government can 
be made to run in an efficient and cost-effective manner. We will con- 
tinue to try to improve our own record and at the same time do 
whatever we can to help other agencies. 



The decade of the 80s will be a most important one for the people of 
Massachusetts and for us at the MCAD. Large numbers of people in the 
Commonwealth will make some of the most important changes of their 
lives — getting a new job or promotion, finding a house or apartment, ob- 
taining an education, taking out a loan, retiring. The choices they are able 
to make will affect their whole lives and also affect the vitality of the Com- 
monwealth. 

We at the MCAD are here to see that all the people living in 
Massachusetts in the 1980s have a chance to make those decisions without 
fear of illegal discrimination. The issues well be facing are many and com- 
plex, but our objective is clear — to make sure that, throughout the 80s, 
people in Massachusetts will be truly free — free to make something special 
of their lives and free to make the Commonwealth a special place in which 
to live. 



If You Ever Need Us 



MCAD Offices 

The Commission's staff is available to receive telephone inquiries 
accept complaints on weekdays from 8:45 a.m. to 5 p.m. 



Boston Office: Sixth Floor, One Ashburton Place 

(the McCormack State Office Building) 

Boston, MA 02108 

727-3990 

Worcester: 75-A Grove Street 

Worcester, MA 01605 
752-2272 

Springfield: 145 State Street 

Springfield, MA 01103 
739-3330 or 739-2145 

New Bedford: 222 Uruon Street 

New Bedford, MA 02740 
997-3191 



The photos on pages 23-26 are of MCAD staff. 



00 

o 

O 
3 



n 
c 

3 



o 
o 

00 



ART PREPARATION by Andrew J. Sweeney 




1980 REPORT 
to the 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts 




Edward J. King Edward T. Hanley SECRETARY 

GOVERNOR ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE 



Massachusetts 
Commission Against Discrimination 



Commissioners 

Darrell L. Outlaw Sam Stonefield 

Chairman Commissioner 



January 1981 





/S^i//a/'/oM ^/ace, ^^o.i/o/i 0^/^<9 



r 



January, 1981 



ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES: 727-3990 



The Honorable Edward J. King, Governor 
and 

The Honorable Members of the General Court 
Commonwealth of Massachusetts 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 15 IB, section 3, Paragraph 11 
The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination is pleased to present you 
with a report of the Commission's activities in 1980. 

This report sets forth the Commission's progress in fulfilling our statutory 
mandates, the activities of each of our Divisions and our fiscal state. We are 
proud of the accomplishments of the Commission over the past year and hope that 
we can continue to serve the citizens of the Commonwealth in enforcing the civil 
rights laws. 

We appreciate the support and assistance you have given the Commission In 
the past and look forward to working with you in the coming year. 




Very truly yours. 




DARRELL L. OUTLAW 



SAMUEL STONEFIELD 
Commissioner 



Contents 



The MCAD CoimDissloners 2 

The MCAD in 1980 3 

Discrimination: 

Legal and Illegal 4 

The Complaint Process 4 

MCAD Division Reports: 

Administrative Services 7 

Case Control 9 

Investigations 10 

Legal 11 

Public Sector , 12 

If You Ever Need Us 15 

Advisory Councils 16 



1 



The MCAD Commissioners 




Darrell L. Outlaw was appointed as a 
Commissioner and Chairman of the MCAD in April, 
1980 by Governor King. Chairman Outlaw is re- 
sponsible for the general administration of the 
Commission's programs, serves as an investigating 
and hearing Commissioner and is the principal 
civil rights review authority for the Commission. 
A graduate of the Boston Public Schools, Chairman 
Outlaw received his bachelors and masters degrees 
from Suffolk University and is a receipient of a 
Juris Doctor degree from the N.E. School of Law. 
He formerly served as Assistant Corporation 
Counsel for the City of Boston and maintained a 
private practice of law. He has also served as - 
teacher with the Dept. of Youth Services teaching 
socially maladjusted children. A member of the 
Massachusetts and Federal Bar, Chairman Outlaw 
has served as counsel for Operation Exodus. 



Darrell L. Outlaw 
CHAIRMAN 



Commissioner Rodriguez, a j'.raduate of Goddard 
College and a former Loeb Fellow at Harvard 
University, has a business management background 
and has focused his attention on the developrrent 
of the MCAD's case processing and management 
information systems. Commissioper Rodriguez 
resigned his position in December of 198C. 






Samuel Stonefield 
COMMISSIONER 



Alex Rodriguez 
COMMISSIONER 

Commissioner Stonefield, a graduate of Dart- 
mouth College and Harvard Law School, is an 
attorney from Springfield, Massachusetts. A 
Commissioner since 1977, he developed the Massa- 
chusetts Discrimination Law Reporter, and has 
authored many major opinions. He oversees the 
legal and legislative work of the Commission, 
and is also responsible for the Western Massa- 
chusetts activities both in case processing 
and civil rights reviews. 



2 



The MCAD in 1980 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSIONERS 

The year 1980 has been one of change and growth for the Coimnissicr. There has 
been a significant rise in complaint intake reflecting an increasing av;areness by 
the citizens of the Commonwealth of their rights under the civil rights laws. In 
1980 there were 1,954 complaints filed, the second highest number of complaints in 
the Commission's history, and the number continues to rise. This increased 
complaint activity has been particularly evident in the areas of sexual harassment 
and age discrimination indicating a new willingness on the part of women and older 
workers to come forward when they believe their rights have been violated. 

In 1980 the Commission's jurisdiction over discrimination against handicapped 
persons in public accommodations became effective. The Commission sees discrimin- 
ation against the handicapped as the frontier of civil rights activity in the 
1980 's and expects increased responsibilities in this area. 

1980 also saw a freeze on state funded positions which presented a real 
challenge to the Commission's efforts to continue to increase productivity. We 
hope that conditions in 1981 will allow us to be fully staffed so that we can 
provide effective and efficient service to the citizens of the Commonwealth. 

HIGHLIGHTS 

GRANTS AND AWARDS - In 1980 the Commission received a total of $554,527 in federal 
funds, $489,677 from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and $64,850 
from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. In view of the state 
freeze these resources are even more important in allowing the Commission to serve 
the public well. 

HEARINGS. DAMAGES AND CASE CLOSURES - During the past year the Commission 
doubled the number of public hearings held. In 1980 the Commission 
awarded $705,012 in damages and settlements to complainants and closed a 
total of 1,856 complaints. 

SIGNIFICANT LITIGATION OR DECISIONS - Over the past year the Commission has issued 
important decisions involving discrimination in housing on the basis of marital 
status, the application and scope of BFOQ's, and sexual harassment in the workplace. 
The Commission is currently involved in the appeal of a major age discrimination 
case before the Supreme Judicial Court. 

NEW MEMORANDA OF AGREEMENT - An additional 27 Agreements signed during the past year 
brings to 137 the number of Massachusetts communities that are actively developing 
affirmative action programs in housing, employment and contract compliance. 

SPECIAL RECOGNITION - The Commissioners would like to give special recognition to 
our dedicated staff who have worked tirelessly in the face of increasing challenges. 
Without their commitment and energy to the goals of the Commission we would not 
have been able to achieve the acomplishments of the past year. 

Darrell L. Outlaw, Chairman Sam Stonefield, Commissioj^r 



3 



Discrimination: 

Legal and Illegal 



Many kinds of discrimination are illegal. But it is important to under- 
stand that, even today, some kinds of discrimination under some kinds of 
circumstances are not prohibited by law. Only when we, the people of 
Massachusetts, through our state legislature decide that a particular prac- 
tice is not only unfair, but something people in the Commonwealth should 
be protected against, is a law passed making that form of discrimination il- 
legal. The kinds of discrimination that are illegal are defined precisely by 
law. The chart on the next page, although greatly simplified, will give you 
some idea of the general areas covered by our anti-discrimination laws. 

The MCAD Fights Illegal Discrimination 

The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) is 
the civil rights law enforcement agency for the Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts. Operating under a broad statutory mandate, the Commis- 
sion is empowered to investigate and decide cases of discrimination in the 
areas of employment, housing, public accommodations, credit, services, 
and education. The Commission can receive and initiate complaints. It has 
strong investigatory powers and clear authority to require remedies where 
discrimination has been found to exist. 

As a law enforcement agency, the MCAD's goal is full compliance 
with civil rights laws and regulations, and the Commission's efforts are all 
designed to achieve that goal. In addition to handling complaints, the 
Commission promulgates rules and regulations, and both monitors and 
assists businesses and government in their civil rights compliance efforts. 

The Complaint Process 



Four Things You Should 
Know About the MCAD 
Complaint Process 



1. IMPARTIALITY: The MCAD is an impartial, objective 
investigating agency. We are not "for" or "against" 
anyone or any side. Our investigators are neutral and 
professional, and their decisions are based on facts 
and evidence. If and when a determination of probable 
cause is made, the Commission may provide, through the General Counsel, an 
attorney to conciliate and to present the case at a public hearing. The 
complainant may be represented by an attorney of his or her own choosing or by 
a Commission attorney. 

2. TIMING: Massachusetts Law requires that all investigations proceed promptly. 
Everyone benefits from a prompt decision; everyone loses by delay. To keep 
cases moving, we impose certain deadlines which must be observed. 

3. SETTLEMENTS: We encourage and actively work to achieve settlements. We want 
to help both parties achieve a voluntary resolution to the complaint whenever 
possible . 

4. RETALIATION: Massachusetts Law, M.G.L., Chapter 151B, Section 4(4), specifically 
prohibits any retaliation against any person who has filed a complaint, partici- 
pated in any investigation or otherwise opposed allegedly discriminatory practices 
and the MCAD strongly enforces this law. Any harassment or action adverse to the 
complainant or witnesses must be carefully and completely avoided. 



4 



Major Areas in which Discrimination 
Is Illegal 



Employment: 

The Fair Practices Law protects the rights of Massachusetts workers to ob- 
tain and maintain employment free of discrimination. Coverage extends to 
advertising, hiring, discharge and all terms and conditions of employment. 

Public and Private Housing: 

It is illegal to discriminate in the sale, rental or leasing of property, housing 
or apartments and all related services such as advertising, showing of prop- 
erty, obtaining a mortgage, etc. 

Public Accommodations: 

No one may be denied services or access to any place, whether licensed or 
unlicensed, which solicits or accepts the patronage of the general public 
(hotels, restaurants, stores, transportation, hospitals, etc.). No distinction 
may be made on the basis of race, sex, physical or mental handicap, 
religious creed, or national origin. 

Credit and Services: 

People may not be denied credit because of their race, religion, sex, marital 
status, national origin, age, or status as a recipient of public assistance. 
Discrimination is also prohibited in advertisting, approving a loan, and ex- 
tending credit. 

Educational Institutions: 

Massachusetts mandates equal educational opportunities for all of its 
citizens in any educational institution which accepts students or applica- 
tions from the general public. 

Protected Classifications 



Public Public and Other Post-Graduate 
Accommo- Multiple Covered General & Vocational Financial 
Employment dations Dwelling Housing Education Education Credit 




Persons with Children 



General Handicap 

Blindness 

Deafness 

Welfare Recipients 
Veterans 

Members of Armed Services 




B Protected 

Im portant Note : Some protected categories, such as age in employment (40-65), are limited Call or write to the MCAD for further information 



MCAD Complaints Filed and Closed 

C.ileiid.ir 1971 throuqfi 19 HO 




1971 



1972 



1973 



1974 



1975 



1976 



1977 



1978 



1979 



1980 



] Filed 



ICIosed 



What Does 

"Settling a Case" Mean? 



The MCAD emphasizes the Importance of settlement at 
every stage of the complaint process; the Commission 
is ready and willing to work with both parties to 
reach a mutually acceptable resolution, and will bring people together as soon as 
possible to discuss settlement terms. A settlement made prior to a Commission 
determination is not an admission of guilt or liability and results in a formal 
closing of the case. 

A case can be settled when both the employer and 
the complainant (the person making the complaint) make an agreement which the 
Commission approves. A settlement may occur at any point in the case process and 
can be suggested to both parties by a representative of the MCAD or by one party 
to the other. A representative of the MCAD reviews settlements to see that they 
are fair. 



One kind of settlement that occurs is a cash 
settlement. In the case of an illegal dismissal from a job, the case settlement 
may constitute severence pay. In the case of unequal pay for equal work, the 
settlement could result in a retroactive pay raise. From January 1, 1980, through 
December 31, 1980, complainants at the MCAD received $705,012 in damages. 

Another kind of settlement involves the job 
itself with the complainant receiving the job or promotion which was originally 
denied. 



MCAD Divisions 



The MCAD has five major divisions, each with its own manager: 
Case Control, Legal, Investigative, and Public Sector, and Administrative 
Services Division. The division heads make up the Commission's internal 
management task force. They meet together regularly both as a group and 
with the commissioners to participate in administrative and policy develop- 
ment decisions. 



Administrative Services Division 

Virginia W. Parks 
DIKECTOR 

The Administrative Services Division is responsible for providing administrati-v 
support for the Commission's operational divisions, including personnel, budget and 
general office management. Support services are also provided to the State Advisory 
Board and the eleven regional advisory councils. 

Public information is also a responsibility of this division and in keeping 
with its commitment to public education, the Commission maintains a speakers' 
bureau, schedules television, radio and other public speaking engagements for the 
commissioners and staff, and arranges for radio and television public service 
announcements . 

Fiscal Report 

For the first time since 1975, the Commission's state appropriation reached 
the million dollar level. This allowed for expansion of both the Contract 
Compliance and Civil Rights Review programs by the addition of one new Field 
Representative to each. (See report of the Public Sector Division). 

In October of 1979 the Commission successfully negotiated contract renewal 
with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for two contracts 
based on actual and projected performance levels. The contracts, one for "backlog" 
and the other for "new charge" complaints totalled $A57,150. 

The Commission successfully completed the terms of the "backlog" contract, 
but due to the imposition of a freeze on the hiring of state-funded employees, 
the target for case closure under the "new charge" contract could not be met, 
and for the first time, this agency was required to accept a negative contract 
modification and return federal money to a funding agency. 

In October of 1980, EEOC renewed the Backlog and New Charge Deferral Contracts 
and increased the rate per charge from $350 to $412.50. 

The Public Sector Division also applied for and was successful in obtaining 
a Fair Housing Assistance Grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 
Development. This grant will enable the Commission to hire additional staff to 
process housing discrimination complaints both in the Boston and Worcester offices. 

At the end of 1980 calendar year, the Commission had received the following 
federal awards : 



FY 1981 Backlog Project Grant 
FY 1981 New Charge Project Grant 
HUD Fair Housing Assistance Grant 



$274,313 
215,364 



64,850 
$554.527 



MCAD FUNDING SOURCES 1975-1981 



Fiscal 
Year 



State 



Federal 



Total Funding 



1975 
1976 
1977 
1978 
1979 
1980 
1981 



$ 



978,777 
731,175 
785,464 
795,464 
975,000 



$ 125,000 



$ 1,103,777 



1,000,000 
1,053,891 



185,000 
320,309 
244,920 
691,530 
392,750 
554,527 



916,175 
1,105,773 
1,039,384 
1,666,530 
1,392,750 
1,608,418 



Personnel 



In 1980 the Commission received state funding for 47 permanent and 12 temporary 
employees. Two of the temporary positions were newly funded, however, the 
Commission failed to obtain their release until early into the FY/81 fiscal year. 

Because of the state imposed hiring freeze, the Commission was forced to rely 
heavily on student interns and temporary clerical service agencies in order to 
conduct routine Commission business and maintain productivity. Several admin- 
istrative problems have developed which are directly attributable to the 
inability to fill vacant positions. 

Fortunately, federal funds were available to supplement the state-funded 
personnel. A total of twenty persons, including attorneys, investigators and 
clerical support staff are paid with federal funds. Despite a reduction in 
available investigative man hours, the Commission was able, through diligent 
staff effort and new management techniques, to maintain our high level of 
productivity. However, without a full complement of staff, we will be unable 
to meet the increasing demands of an ever growing caseload. 

Affirmative Action 

The Commission continues its strong commitment to the principles of affirmative 
action. This was clearly demonstrated by meeting all goals that were set for 1980. 
The Commission staff is composed of 45% minorities, 55% non-minorities; 40% males, 
60% females. 

In July, 1980 the Commission also adopted a Statement of Policy Toward 
Handicapped Persons as well as other minorities. 



Public Information 

In a continuing effort to inform the residents of the Commonwealth of their 
rights under the law, the Commission developed and distributed brochures which 
focused on the Commission, employment rights, age discrimination and maternity 
benefits. 

By statute, employers having more than six employees must post in conspicuous 
places certain posters which define fair employment practices. In 1980, the 
Administrative Services Division undertook the revision, printing and distribution 
of 25,000 posters to all the Commonwealth's major public and private employers. 



8 



A particularly exciting project was the development of a 20-minute slide/ tape 
presentation which provides a general orientation to the Coiimiission, Its history 
function and procedures. It has proven useful for speaking engagements, convention 
booths, and for meetings with various community groups. 

Advisory Councils 

The State Advisory Board appointed by the Governor and the Commission's 
Advisory Councils continue to play an important role in the Commission's activities. 
During 1980 the Councils and the Board supported legislation proposed by the 
Commission and disseminated information on discrimination law on television and 
radio throughout the state. 

The Berkshire Advisory Council has operated a volunteer complaint office 
making it possible for persons in the far Western area of the state to file 
complaints and receive information on civil rights. The Merrimack Area Advisory 
Council, with the cooperation of a number of state and federal agencies, convened 
a Community Awareness Seminar dealing with discrimination in housing, education, 
civil service and criminal justice. 

Members of all the local Councils and the Board cooperate with Commission 
staff in the Civil Rights Review Program and offer assistance to their local 
governments in developing Affirmative Action Plans. 

Case Control Division 

Terrence P. Morris 
DIRECTOR 

Established in 1977, the Case Control Division is the planning and monitoring 
arm of the MCAD and is responsible for providing monthly and weekly information and 
recommendations concerning management of the agency's case load. Under the 
direction of MCAD's Deputy Director of Administration, Case Control is in charge of 
the computerized case tracking and management information system (MIS). By 
centralizing case information, the MIS has reduced the length of time to respond to 
case status inquiries from hours or days to minutes. The MIS breaks down the MCAD' 
case operation into over 70 measurable transactions, which enables the Case Control 
staff to identify bottlenecks in the case processing procedure. As a result, the 
MCAD is better able to monitor its own performance. Monthly reports detailing case 
intake and progress in case processing are circulated by the Case Control Division 
as a continuing progress report. Currently the Case Control Division is using the 
output of the MIS to identify additional ways to increase the efficiency of case 
management . 

This division assumed increased significance during 19SC as budgetary 
restrictions severely hampered the agency's case processi;^^ capabilities. Efficient 
allocation of the Commission's scarce resources became the new challenge. As the 
production statistics on page 6 indicate, the challenge was successfully met. By 
directing a concerted effort, the Commission was able to identify and eliminate 
several significant impediments to efficient case processing. Most notable among 
these was a 33% reduction in cases on appeal from Lack of Probable Cause determin- 
ations . 

Despite a hiring freeze which resulted in a significant reduction in available 
investigative work hours. Commission case processing productivity kept pace with 
1979. During 1980 the system was used to identify multiple complaint respondents. 
Once targeted these respondents were the object of a consolidated and accelerated 
investigation and resultant early disposition. 



9 



Division of Invesrigations 

John A. Ramos 
DIRECTOR 

The Division responds to complaints of unlawful discrimination in private 
sector employment and education. It also employs investigators in the regional 
offices of Worcester, Springfield, and New Bedford. The Investigative staff 
works in three units: 

The Intake Unit meets with people who wish to file coirplaints and draws up 
a complaint if jurisdiction has been established. In employment cases, this 
unit initiates the investigation by sending interrogatories to the employer. 
The Current Unit investigates recently filed private sector cases. The 
primary responsibility of the current unit is to settle complaints when 
possible. 

The Backlog Unit works from the older cases still on file, from the oldest 
towards the present. It is the responsibility of this unit to continue 
to implement the legislative mandate to continue to reduce the backlog in 
the Commission's case inventory. 

If a complaint is closed for Lack of Probable Cause, the complainant has ten 
days after the date of service to appeal to the Office of the General Counsel. After 
a preliminary hearing and review, the Hearing Commissioner may affirm, remand or 
reverse the finding. If Probable Cause is found, the Commission will seek through 
conciliation to secure the complainant's rights and to eliminate any unlawful 
discriminatory practice. If conciliation efforts fail, the complaint is certified 
for Public Hearing by the Investigating Commissioner. Following Public Hearing, a 
decision is issued by the Hearing Commissioner. If the Commissioner finds that 
discrimination took place, a "Cease and Desist" order will be issued which is 
enforceable in court. 



Staff of the Division continued to receive training in rapid case processing 
in sessions conducted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in the summer 
of 1980. The Commission will be receiving additional training modules from the 
EEOC for use on the Commission's Audio Visual equipment. These training materials 
will allow the Commission to conduct its own training sessions both for staff and 
community groups. The Division of Investigations continued its efforts in improving 
the quality and quantity of service to the public. Much of this effort has been 
in the continued refinement of the Commission's intake process. 

As shown in the charts on page 11, there have been significant changes in 
the nature of complaints filed at the Commission over the past ten years. In 1970 
race and sex complaints together accounted for over 81% of all complaints filed. 
In 1980, race and sex complaints were down to 62% of all complaints while age 
complaints more than tripled, going from 4.7% of all complaints in 1970 to 15.1% 
in 1980. Employment complaints increased from 66.1% of all complaints filed in 
1970 to 83.3% of all complaints in 1980. 



The past year saw a reduction in staffing for the Division and a resultant 

decrease in expected productivity due to a state imposed hiring freeze. The 

Commission hopes in 1981 to be able to fill vacant positions so that our goal 
of efficient and effective service to the public can continue. 



Discrimination Charged in Cases Filed with the IVICAD 




Areas of Discrimination in Cases Filed with the IVICAD 




3.6% 

Legal Division 

Anne H. Taylor, General Counsel 

The Legal Division serves as in-house counsel to the Commission. The duties 
of the General Counsel and staff attorneys are varied and include advising 
investigators on complex investigations, reviewing investigative recommendations 
to the commissioners, attempting conciliation after a Probable Cause finding, and 
litigating where conciliation fails. Commission attorneys also represent the 
Commission in all state and federal courts. 

The year 1980 was an important year of accomplishment for the Legal Division. 
The Commissioners appointed a new General Counsel, the first woman to hold this 
position in the history of the agency. A monthly "call of the list" was 
instituted. With this new procedure cases certified for public hearing are 
docketed for call, thus requiring counsel for the parties to appear, declare their 
readiness for trial, and assent to a date certain for the public hearing. Imple- 
mentation of this procedure has resulted in a significant increase over 1979 in 
the number of public hearings held, and a corresponding reduction in the backlog 
of cases pending. Additionally, this procedure has encouraged the settlement of 
cases, resulting in a 30% increase over 1979 in the number of cases conciliated 
after a causal determination has been made. The backlog of cases in the public 
hearing process has been reduced from 244 in 1979, to 220 in 1980. 



11 



The past year witnessed several important substantive developments in the body 
of state anti-discrimination law. In the past year the Commission issued major 
opinions on such issues as discrimination in housing on the basis of marital status; 
the scope and application of the statutory BFOQ defense; and the coverage of^ 
Chapter 151B in cases of sexual harassment in the workplace. The Commission's 
position on its jurisdiction to accept complaints based on sexual preference was 
examined by the Supreme Judicial Court and sustained. Additionally, the Commission, 
in participation with private counsel, is seeking review by the Supreme Judicial 
Court of a landmark MCAD opinion concerning age discrimination. This appeal, 
scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Judicial Court in early 1981, promises to be 
the first case in the nation to directly address the question of the legality under 
the civil rights laws of discrimination in favor of older persons within that 
protected class. 

The Commission's Rules for Procedure were redrafted in 1980 with the active 
participation of legal and investigative staff, as well as members of the private 
bar representing both complainants and respondents. These new rules are an 
important step in simplifying and expediting all proceedings before the Commission. 
Public hearings on the new rules will be held in early 1981, with final promulgation 
expected shortly hereafter. 

The Commission's jurisdiction over discrimination on the basis of handicap 
in public accommodations became effective on January 1, 1980. The legal staff 
has assisted advocacy groups in developing regulations designed to implement this 
new law. The Commission has also voted to support legislation currently filed 
which would grant the agency jurisdiction to accept and resolve complaints of 
discrimination in employment on the basis of handicap. 

Public Sector Division 

Roger C. MacLeod, 
DIRBCTOR 

Among the duties of the Public Sector Division is the obligation to investigate 
all public sector employment, housing, credit and public accommodation complaints. 
But it is also a discrimination prevention arm of the MCAD. By working with local 
officials in cities and towns to meet equal opportunity requirements in housing, 
employment and contract compliance, the Division both prevents possible future 
discrimination complaints and supports the communities in their requests for 
federal and state funds. 

The Division has four special hjnction operating units: 

• The Housing and Public Accommodations Unit handles complaints of 
discrimination in housing, public accommodations and credit. 

• The Public Employment Unit handles employment discrimination in 
cases where the employer is either a state agency, a county, or one of 
the cities and towns in the Commonwealth. 

• The Contract Compliance Unit makes sure that contractors who have 
construction contracts with state agencies adhere to the requisite affir- 
mative action requirements in the contracts. The unit provides 
technical assistance to cities and towns instituting contract compliance 
proceedings. 



The Civil Rights Review Unif s principal function is to enforce civil 
rights compliance within Massachusetts cities and towns in the areas of 
employment and housing and contract compliance. The Review Unit 
does not receive complaints; it tries to identify and resolve issues before 
they are litigated by working directly with cities and towns. Federal 
grant program requirements stipulate that cities and towns seeking 
federal and state money prove that they are in compliance with federal 
anti-discrimination laws. The review requirements are stated in a 
federal "A -95" regulation. 



The Housing and Public Accommodations Unit 

Significant change has occurred In the Housing Unit during 1980. A Memorandum 
of Agreement with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development was 
signed on March 5, 1980 requiring the development of a cooperative case processing 
system between the federal and state government, development of compatible 
enforcement systems and provision for significant financial assistance for the MCAD. 

Implementation of the program under the terms of the Memoranda of Agreement 
has been quite successful. It has been accomplished with minimum difficulty on the 
part of the respective agencies. The Commission is easily within range of 
achieving, during 1981, the goal of an average case processing time of less than 
60 days from filing date to closure. 

A grant for $64,850 was awarded to the Commission by HUD to provide complaint 
processing assistance for the housing unit. Contracts for these monies were signed 
on October 21, 1980 and provide for two housing investigators, one in the Worcester 
and one in the Boston office, and clerical support. 



In July the Commission filed a second series of applications with HUD for a 
total of $164,990. This money consists of applications in the areas of technical 
assistance, data and information systems, and innovative projects (pattern and 
practice investigation) . The Commission expects to hear the results of these 
applications in early 1981. 



The Public Employment Unit 

As a consequence of the economy, increased awareness by public employees of 
their statutory rights and other factors, there has been a significant growth in 
the ntimber of public employment complaints filed with the Commission. The number 
of public employment complaints has increased in 1980. The significant growth in 
the new public sector complaints has, unfortunately, increased the public sector 
backlog, a reversal of a trend which had held through April of 1980. As a result 
the Commission has found it necessary to reallocate scarce resources to deal with 
this important area. 

The Contract Compliance Unit , 
For the first time in a decade, positions were available to hire staff with 
responsibilities for state and local affirmative action requirements on constructior 
contracts. During the past year considerable effort has gone into a revision of 
the state monitoring and performance system; development of a compliance monitoring 
manual and initiation of programs providing technical assistance to communitxes 
for the development of affirmative action programs in the construction area, ihe 
Commission continues to provide assistance to state agencies in the development and 
implementation of their programs. Considerable time was spent with the Bureau of 
Building Construction on the $60 million State Transportation Building contract. 



1^ 



The Civil Rights Review Unit 

1980 was a period of Increased growth and consolidation of program activity in 
the Civil Rights Review Program unit. Twenty-seven Massachusetts communities were 
added to the list of municipalities initiating and developing affirmative action 
programs in employment, housing and contract compliance. In addition to the 137 
communities with Memoranda of Agreement, there are over 60 smaller towns which 
routinely report on their employment profiles and employment practices but which are 
not required to maintain affirmative action programs because of their population size. 

One important development in program activity during 1980 was the creation of 
a compliance specialist position to assure timely and adequate reporting of program 
activity and results by cities/towns. A major restructuring of compliance and 
enforcement activity has been underway for the past four months of 1980. This 
effort is expected to conclude with the development of a management information 
system which will be computerized and functioning by June 1981. 

A three year retrospective review of the Civil Rights Review Program was 
initiated in November of 1980. A final and complete report is expected to be issued 
by the end of January 1981 which will outline accomplishments and problems of the 
past three years, and identify program goals for the next two years. The impact of 
Proposition 2 1/2 on local budgets will unquestionably affect employment opportu- 
nities at the municipal level. At the same time sufficient growth has occurred 
in the development of fair housing programs so that new initiatives in that area 
are necessary and appropriate. 

Preliminary data indicates that for the period of July 1, 1977 through July 1, 
1980, there was a significant net gain of at least 1,543 minorities employed by 
municipal government in client communities. We expect this preliminary total to 
increase by approximately 20% as final computations are run. As the chart below 
indicates, minority municipal employment has risen from slightly over 2000 in 
1977 to almost 4500 in 1980. These gains translate into an annual dollar payroll 
value in excess of $15 million per year. 



Numbers 
4500 _, 



4000 
3500 
3000 



2500 _L- 
2000 



1500 
1000 
500 



0- 



Gains in MINORITY MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES 



1977 



1980 



14 



p 



If You Ever Need Us 



BOSTON 

WORCESTER • 

SPRINGFIELD • 



NEW BEDFORD 



MCAD Offices 

The Commission's staff is available to receive telephone inquiries or 
accept complaints on weekdays from 8:45 a.m. to 5 p.m. 



Boston Office: Sixth Floor, One Ashburton Place 

(the McCormack State Office Building) 
Boston, MA 02108 
727-3990 

75-A Grove Street 
Worcester, MA 01605 
752-2272 

145 State Street 
Springfield, MA 01103 
739-3330 or 739-2145 

222 Union Street 
New Bedford, MA 02740 
997-3191 




Worcester: 



Springfield: 



New Bedford: 



15 



Advisors Across the State 

The MCAD now has a strong network of advisors in regional coun- 
»nls across the entire Commonwealth. There also is a Statewide Advisory 
Board which coordinates the activities of the regional councils, reviews the 
implementation of the Commission's programs and policies, and advises 
both the Conunission and the Governor of the Commonwealth on matters 
of policy affecting the Commission. The Board is appointed by the Gover- 
nor and represents the regional councils and interest groups affected by 
Commission actions. Board members serve without comp)ensation. Current 
members are listed inside the front cover. 

There are regional advisory councils based in: Boston, Fall River, 
Fitchburg, Lawrence, Lynn, New Bedford, North Dartmouth, North Wey- 
mouth, Pittsfield, Springfield, Worcester. 




The eleven regional Advisory Councils include representatives of 
owners and brokers of residential property; major lendii^ and credit in- 
stitutions; major private employers; a local personnel or civil service ad- 
ministrator; local post-secondary educational institutions; local labor 
organizations; minority racial, ethnic and linguistic groups; women; elderly 
and handicapped persons; and recipients of public assistance. These coun- 
cils advise the Commission on matters of public policy, inform the Com- 
mission on local discrimination problems, and conduct seminars in their 
communities for employers, lawyers, realtors, bankers, etc. Another exam- 
ple of community and advisory council working together is the volunteer 
office in Pittsfield where the local C.A.P. office. Action for Opportunity, 
takes complaints, types them up and sends them to the Springfield Office 
of MCAD to be processed and investigated. 



Statewide Advisory Board 

Scoba F. Rhodes, Acting Chairperson, Southeastern Mass. Univ., E. Falmouth 
Myron S. Alexander, Vice-Chairperson, Manufacturer, Boston 
*John Andrade, Minority Recruiter, New Bedford 
Elsi Basque, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Abington 
Lawrence Beane, Banker, Springfield 
Dora Bastarache, Community Worker, New Bedford 
Carmen S. Canio, Area Health Education Center, Watertown 
Edna Hodgson, Senior Citizens Organizer, Jamaica Plain 
Edward M. Berger, Manufacturer, Sharon 

Terasita Rivera, Western Massachusetts Legal Services, Springfield 
*James W. McClain, Businessman, Stoughton 
Peter Kin-Lap Chan, Chinatown Little City Hall, Boston 
Donald Butler, Banker, Pittsfield 

Manuel Carreiro, Southeastern Mass. University, New Bedford 

Frederick Fay, Tufts New England Medical Center, Boston 
*Nina Calvin, Spanish American Union, Springfield 

Elizabeth Gittes, Attorney, Boston 
*David Hampton, Third World Jobs ClearingHouse , Worcester 
*Barbara Schnuer, Community Worker, Lunenburg 

Scott M. Stearns, Jr., Realtor, Longmeadow 

Joel P. Suttenberg, American Jewish Committee, Boston 
*David VTharton, North Shore Community Center, Lynn 
*Syvalia Eyman, III, United South End Settlements, Boston 

Polly Jackson, Massachusetts League of Women Voters, Lincoln 
*Charlotte Lawrence, Greater Lawrence Community Action Council, No. Andover 

Thomas A. Mela, Massachusetts Advocacy Center, Needham 

Amelia Miclette, State Civil Service Commission, Maiden 
*Elizabeth Metz, Bristol Community College, Westport 

*Chairperson of regional advisory council 

Regional Advisory Council Chairpersons 

Nina Galvin, Springfield Advisory Council 
George Morrison, Boston Advisory Council 
Scoba F. Rhodes, Cape Cod Advisory Council 
Elizabeth Metz, Fall River Advisory Council 
Michael Ciota, Fitchburg Advisory Council 
Dennis Powell, Berkshire Advisory Council 
David Hampton, Worcester Advisory Council 
Carlos Ruiz, Merrimack Valley Advisory Council 
James W. McClain, South Shore Advisory Council 
David Wharton, North Shore Advisory Council 
John Andrade, New Bedford Advisory Council 



17 



Massachusetts Commission Against Discriminatioi 



State Library of Massachusetts 
State House, Boston 



M C A D 




261.7 
Ml+lfr 
1981/82 
C.2 



Contents 

Letter to the Governor 3 

History 4 

MCAD Commissioners 5 

Budgets, Contracts 7 

Administration 9 

Case Control 10 

Investigations 11 

Legal 15 

Public Sector 17 

Organizational Chart 19 

Task Force 20 

Ad visorv Board 20 

Future Directions Inside Back Cover 




c 



Michael S. Dukakis 
Governor 



Massachusetts 
Commission 
Against 

Discrimination 



1981-1982 Annual Reports 

Commissioners: Leon A. Brathwaite II, Chairman Margot P. Kosberg Kenneth J. Cote, Jr. 



The Commonwealth of Massachusetts 
Commission Against Discrimination 
1 Ashuburton Place, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 




The Honorable Michael Dukakis, 
Governor and 

The Honorable Members of the General Court, 
Commonwealth of Massachusetts 



Ladies and Gentlemen: 

In accordance with the Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 15 IB, Section 10, 
we are pleased to present to you the annual report for the Massachusetts Commission 
Against Discrimination. 

The report details the Commission's 1982 efforts and accomplishments in com- 
plying with its statutory and regulatory mandates to eliminate discrimination in 
employment, pubUc accommodations, pubHc and multiple dwelHngs, housing, edu- 
cation and financial credit. 

The MCAD is a unique agency. Its activities are often well publicized and hotly 
debated. Many of its achievements are frequently misunderstood or rejected on philo- 
sophical grounds. Nonetheless, it has, during its tumultuous existence, generated mil- 
lions of dollars of relief for victims of discrimination and has stimulated hundreds of 
communities to adopt modem equal opportunity and affirmative action policies. 

These achievements could not have taken place without the considerable efforts 
of a highly competent professional staff. We, therefore, dedicate this report to the 
men and women of the Commission. 



Sincerely, 






Leon A. Brathwaite, II 



Kenneth J. Cote, Jr. Margot P. Kosberg 



3 



A. Century of 
Progress 

The Commonwealth of Massachu- 
setts first pioneered among the states in 
legislating against discrimination in pub- 
lic education and public accomodations. 
These concerns have now broadened to 
include legislation defining discrimina- 
tion in such areas as housing, employ- 
ment, sex and the aged. 



It was six years before the Civil War that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 
first pioneered among the states in enacting laws forbidding discrimination in public 
education and public accommodations. These noteworthy efforts, however, failed to 
address discriminatory practices in the workplace. Employment discrimination in 185 
was not only legal in Massachusetts but, in fact, commonly practiced. 

It was not until 1946 that the law prohibiting discrimination in employment wa 
passed. The year 1946 also witnessed the creation of the Fair Employment Practices 
Commission as the enforcement agency for civil rights legislation. 

In 1950, the Commission's name was changed to the Massachusetts Commissioi 
Against Discrimination (MCAD). Since then, there have been dramatic jurisdictional 
changes resulting from new federal and state laws, as well as court decisions in the civ 
rights field. MCAD's responsibilities have grown to absorb these concerns. 

Along with the impact of the law, the MCAD's workload has increased tremen- 
dously. In the seventies, the number of complaints averaged 1,700 per year — six timi 
the average annual caseload of the Commission's first eighteen years. Moreover, recen 
complaints reflect the Commission's broadened categories of discrimination. 



Race 
Color 
2 Religion/Creed 



*C National Origin 
^ Ancestry 
•2 



Age 



•c 

U Marital Status 

</> 

Persons with Children 

Q 



General Handicap 



O Blindness 



^ Deafness 



^ Welfare Recipients 



^ Armed Services 



Employment Pubhc Financial Pubhc and Other General Post-Graduate 
Accomo- Credit Multiple Covered Education & Vocational 
dations Dwelling Housing Education 



Protected Classifications 



4 



The MCAD 
Commissioners 



The Commission is comprised of three Commis- 
sioners, appointed by the Governor to serve staggered 3- 
year terms. Each Commissioner is responsible for a 
geographic portion of the state. 

Commissioner Leon A. Brathwaite, II, Chairman 

Leon Arthur Brathwaite II's appointment as Chair- 
man of the MCAD in February, 1981, cHmaxes a long 
history of civil rights involvement. He began his career 
as an EEO Officer at Norris Industry. He has also held 
positions with H. P. Hood and Stone & Webster Engi- 
neering before joining state service as the State Director 
of Affirmative Action in 1977. As the state's Director of 
Affirmative Action, Mr. Brathwaite estabHshed policy 
programs for state agencies in implementing affirmative 
action. Also, while with Affirmative Action, Mr. 
Brathwaite was one of the principals involved in the 
successful negotiation and implementation of the 




Culbreath Consent Decree. Utilizing his affirmative 
action experience, Mr. Brathwaite has worked closely 
with the A-95 Review Program to establish improved 
civil rights programs in Housing, Employment and 
Minority Business Enterprise with eastern Massachu- 
setts municipalities. 

Mr. Brathwaite's civic and community involve- 



ment includes the NAACP, the Big Brother Association 
of Boston and the Black Achievers Association. He is 
currently a member of the Democratic State 
Committee. 

Commissioner Brathwaite's undergraduate studies 
were undertaken at Northeastern University, with sub- 
sequent studies through the Massachusetts State Man- 
agement Program at the Harvard Business School and at 
the John F. Kennedy School of Government. Most re- 
cently, Mr. Brathwaite has served as a faculty advisor to 
the National Judicial College, University of Nevada- 
Reno. 

Commissioner Kenneth J. Cote, Jr. 

Commissioner Cote is a graduate of the University 
of Puerto Rico Law School. He is certified to practice 
law in Massachusetts and the federal courts of northern 
and eastern Texas. 

As a private practitioner in Holyoke, he conducted 
a storefront practice located in the heart of that city's 
minority district. As a staff attorney with the Dallas 
office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commis- 
sion, he represented the U.S. Government in several 
million-dollar class actions. He has appeared in Courts 
throughout the Commonwealth, Texas and Oklahoma. 




5 



As the Commissioner from western Massachu- 
setts, Attorney Cote has administered the operations of 
the Commonweahh's Worcester and Springfield offices, 
and the A-95 Program for western Massachusetts mu- 
nicipahties. He has also overseen the operation of the 
Commission's legal arm. 

Commissioner Margot P. Kosberg 

Margot Publicker Kosberg was appointed to the 
Commission in September, 1981, and was appointed to 
a full three-year term in March of 1982. Commissioner 
Kosberg began her work in state service in 1972, as 
Director of the Consumer Complaint Division of the 
State Executive Office of Consumer Affairs. Attorney 
Kosberg next served as a Hearings Officer, sitting on 
several hundred Rate Setting Commission and Civil 
Service Commission appeal cases. 

In 1978, Ms. Kosberg was appointed Counsel to 
the State Office of Affirmative Action, and in February 
of 1980, was appointed Culbreath Consent Decree 
Monitor, overseeing the implementation of the U.S. 
District Court consent decree involving the recruit- 
ment, hiring and promotion of minorities in four large 
state agencies. In June of 1981, she was appointed Direc- 
tor of Administration of the MCAD, serving in that 
capacity until her appointment as Commissioner. 

Commissioner Kosberg, a graduate of Western 
Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, and Boston Uni- 
versity School of Law, and past president of the Massa- 
chusetts Association of Women Lawyers, has worked 
closely with the Commission's Legal Division to clear 
up numerous cases awaiting public hearing. Commis- 
sioner Kosberg was instrumental in the creation of the 
MCAD Multi-Cultural Awareness Task Force and has 




worked with that group, as well as the MCAD's Advi- 
sory Board, to ensure a constructive flow of information 
and ideas. 

Together with Chairman Leon Brathwaite, Com- 
missioner Kosberg oversees the administration of the 
Boston and New Bedford offices of the MCAD. 



6 

1 , 



The MCAD receives approximately one-half of its support from the state. A 
seven-year analysis of the Commission's budgets will show that, while the state funded 
the Commission with $978,777 in 1975, that funding had grown by only $26,000 in 
Fiscal 1982, an annual increase of less than $4,000. 

In Fiscal 1981, the MCAD's state budget was $1,054,704. Its Fiscal 1982 budget 
was reduced 22% to $859,739. In addition, the Commission received a reduced fund- 
ing rate from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for failure to 
achieve EEOC performance standards during 1980-1981. 

The Commissioners were thus faced with addressing issues of agency effective- 
ness, productivity and staff morale with a severely diminished arsenal of fiscal resources. 
Regrettably, one of the inescapable results of the cutback was the elimination of seven- 
teen management, investigative and clerical positions. 

Budget Review 

FISCAL YEAR 

Budget 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 

STATE 978,777 731,175 785.464 795,464 975,000 1,000,000 1,054,704 932,969 1,005.005 

FEDERAL 125,000 185,010 320,309 244,920 691,530 392,750 554,527 703,350 1,053.949 

TOTAL 1,103.777 916,175 1,105,773 1,039,384 1,666,530 1,392,750 1,609.231 1,636,319 2,058,954 

Expenditures 

STATE 835,995 679,291 681,083 706,409 863,914 992,917 917.992 914.478 

FEDERAL 171,533 162,692 218,530 336,627 349,903 535,398 461.034 481.511 

TOTAL 1.007,478 841,983 899,613 1,043,036 1.213,817 1,528.315 1.379.022 1.395.989 



In moving to meet the new challenges, the Commissioners developed and imple- 
mented the following strategies: 

1. Prioritize Resources — A decision was made to grant first priority to all legisla- 
tively mandated activities. 

2. Maximize Federal EEOC Funding — Efforts would be made to maximize total 
funding by meeting all Federal performance standards. 

3. Speed-Up Case Processing and Resolution — A concerted effort would be 
made to develop and evolve investigative mechanisms that would achieve higher case- 
processing efficiency while maintaining federal grant assistance. 



7 



changes in Employed Personnel 



1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 



□ 
□ 



STATE FUNDED 
FEDERAL FUNDED 



4. Obtain Other Federal Grants — Additional federal grant assistance would 
actively pursued. 

With the imposition of new management techniques, dramatic results began 
emerge by the end of 1982. For example, 450 more cases were closed in 1982 than 
the previous year. EEOC performance standards, which the agency had failed to ai 
in 1981, were met in 1982. As a consequence, payment for dual-filed cases increase 
from $353 to $393 per case. Additionally, as compared to 1981, the agency met all 
its contractual obligations with respect to cases closed, having extended the numb 
of closings to 1034 in Fiscal 1982 as compared to 661 in the previous period. The 
"bottom line" result from these improvements was an increase in funding by EE( 
of $105,857 

In Fiscal 1981, the first year in which the Department of Housing and Urbai 
Development provided funding for the processing of Title VIII complaints, the 
MCAD received approximately $64,000 in enforcement-capacity building funds. 
Fiscal 1983, the current operating year, the Commission will receive $137,000 in t 
category, in addition to $185,000 in Competitive Grants. Incidentally, the MCAI 
Housing Program was the recipient of the largest share of competitive Fair Housii 
Assistance Program dollars of any similar state or local program in the nation. 



Fiscal 1983 Appropriations and Contracts 

Fair Housing Assistance Program, Type I - Year III 

Fair Housing Assistance Program, Innovative Projects Type II - Year 

Fair Housing Assistance Program Information Data Systems 

1983 EEOC Age Contract 

EEOC Inventory Reduction Contract 

EEOC New Charge Contract 

EEOC Expenditure Ratification Contract 

Total Federal 

Total State 

Combined Total 



$ i;i 
II, III 



n 

4* 

$ 9;,^ 

!,(),( 
$1,9 ,^ 



8 



Administrative 
Services Division 



The Administrative Services Division provides 
office support services for the Commission at its Boston 
headquarters and at three locations across the Common- 
wealth. The division is directly responsible for the daily 
management of personnel, including payroll functions, 
purchasing, accounting, maintenance of physical plant 
and other support activities. Another prime responsibil- 
ity of the division is that of developing the Commis- 
sion's annual state and federal budgets. This administra- 
tive area has become increasingly more complex with 
the growth of federal contracts awarded to the Commis- 
sion, while, at the same time, the state legislature has 
imposed new procedures and controls for handling 
federal monies. These increased workload demands may 
require an augmentation to the division's personnel in 
the near future. 

In addition to meeting the daily needs of the Com- 
mission's statewide operation, the administrative divi- 
sion provides Haison to a 



The administrative area has become 
creasingly more complex with the 
owth of federal contracts awarded to 
e Commission. At the same time, the 
ite legislature has imposed new proce- 
ires and controls for handling federal 
onies. 



number of state and fed- 
eral agencies and depart- 
ments. Included among 
these are the state offices 
of Administration and 
Finance, Budget Bureau, 
Personnel Division, 
Group Insurance Com- 



mission, Purchasing 
Division, State Treasurer, Office of the Comptroller, the 
Senate and House Ways and Means Committees, and, 
on the federal level, with the Equal Employment Op- 
portunity Commission. 

Another continuing responsibility of the Adminis- 
trative Services Division is that of providing informa- 



tional services for the Commission. This function in- 
cludes the development and distribution of brochures, 
posters and other communications to the Commission's 
field offices, community and municipal centers, public 




service and neighborhood groups and the business 
community. 



9 



Case Control 
Division 



! 



The Case Control Division bears the primary re- 
sponsibiUty for effective management of the agency's 
case inventory. It performs the vital function of provid- 
ing the Commission and its managers with accurate, 
reliable and timely information upon which to base 
its decisions regarding the allocation of the agency's 
resources. 

The division operates from a computerized data 
base which contains all relevant information pertaining 
to each complaint in the case inventory. One of the most 
useful and unusual features of the Commission's Man- 
agement Information System (MIS) is its capacity to 
determine how much time has elapsed since activity may 
have taken place on a particular case. This data enables 
managers to isolate stagnant cases and to identify bottle- 
necks in the process. 

Staff caseloads and production are monitored 
through weekly and monthly reports. With such a 

support system, division 
managers are now able to 
identify individual staff 
members who may re- 
quire assistance and/or 
supplemental training. 
MIS is also used to locate 
procedural impediments. 
This identification tool 
proved invaluable in 
assisting the Legal Division in reducing the Commis- 
sion's case inventory by some 40 percent. 

The Case Control program represents an ongoing 
critical review of divisional interaction designed to refine 
and/or replace existing procedures. These programmatic 
changes are normally instituted upon completion of 



10 



Management of the Commission's 
information system is but one com- 
ponent of the Case Control Division's 
central planning function. The division 
also executes a critical review of divi- 
sional interaction and helps initiate pro- 
gram changes based on its evaluation. 




pilot projects. Two recent examples of such projects 
have significantly affected case processing. One involv 
the development of an internship program to supple- 
ment the Commission's full-time legal and investigati 
staffs; another analyzed and evaluated the use of fact- 
finding conferences as an investigative tool to accelera 
case processing while maintaining qualitative standarc 



Division of 
Investigations 



The Division of Investigations is charged with the 
responsibility of receiving and investigating complaints 
concerning education and private and public employment 
practices. The Division operates through both the main 
office in Boston, as well as through the field units in 
New Bedford, Springfield and Worcester, where com- 
plaints concerning credit and public accommodations are 
also investigated. 

In its investigations, the Division utiHzes Fact- 
Finding conferences. Interrogatories, personal interviews 
and on-site visits to search out all fact surrounding the 
alleged discriminatory act. During the investigatory 
stage, the Division may provide an invaluable service to 
both the complainant and the respondent by airing the 
concerns and helping to defuse the matter. The investi- 
gator strives to both improve conditions and practices in 
the workplace and to assist the parties in arriving at a 
mutually satisfactory resolution or "Pre-Determination 

Settlement." 



COMPLAINTS FILED AND CLOSED 



With the implementation of its 
rly Resolution Process, the Division 
Investigation has accomplished its 
al of reducing case processing time 
d has done so without sacrificing the 
ality of its investigative work. 



In the absence of 
a Pre-Determination 
Settlement, the investiga- 
tor has the responsibility 
of determining whether 
the complaint warrants a 
finding of either "Proba- 
ble Cause," that is, a 
finding that more likely 
than not there was an act of discrimination committed, 
or "Lack of Probable Cause." The investigator's find- 
ings are then reviewed by the Division Director and sent 
to the Investigating Commissioner who reviews and 
approves all such findings. If Probable Cause is found, 
the case is then sent to the agency's Legal Division for 



3000 



2000 



1000 




1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 

■ Filed 
= Closed 



conciliation purposes. 

Over the past 12 months, the investigations unit 
has been directly involved in helping the MCAD reduce 
its long-standing case backlog. With the implementa- 
tion of its Early Resolution Process (ERP), the unit has 
accomplished its goal of reducing case processing time 
without sacrificing the quality of its investigative work. 
The division's streamHned performance in this area has 
been instrumental in assisting the agency to meet federal 
EEOC case processing standards, thus maximizing its 
federal funding. 

Additionally, in 1982, the division has sought to 
broaden the work experiences and the case accountabil- 
ity of its staff. One of the most successful techniques 
employed in this effort has been the planned rotation of 



11 




"intake" and case assignments. Rather than establish a 
separate "intake" unit, where several investigators 
would be assigned to receiving complaints, the Division 
now assigns all supervisory personnel to an intake rota- 
tion. Under this procedure the staff member receiving 
or processing the complaint becomes the assigned inves- 
tigator to that complaint. This technique has not only 
enriched the training of division personnel but has in- 
creased their professionalism. 



Productivity 



1979 



1978 



1977 



1976 



1975 



10 



20 



30 



40 



Complaints Filed and Closed 



il2 



The Early Resolution Process (ERP) is actually a composite of several investigative 
techniques. In some ways it is a throwback to the late 1960's, when the Investigating 
Commissioner conducted his/her "informal conferences" at which both the complain- 
ant and respondent would be present. Resurrected and rejuvenated, it is used in conjunc- 
tion with the interrogatory to accomplish several purposes: notably, to bring the adver- 
saries together quickly and informally and to achieve settlement without protracted 
investigation and delay. 

Under the Early Resolution Process, an investigation is initiated almost immedi- 
ately. Within two days of filing of the complaint, a copy of the complaint is sent to the 
respondent. The notice of complaint advises the respondent that it will be contacted by an 
MCAD staff person within five days to schedule a fact-finding conference. The respon- 
dent is then informed as to who should be in attendance, what documents to bring, and 
generally, what format will be followed. 

In addition to reducing the length of time it takes to investigate a case, the most 
significant purpose of ERP is to provide a forum for the airing of a grievance and possi- 
ble settlement of the case. Every innovative change to investigative methods has fo- 
cused on the necessity of bringing the parties together immediately after the complaint 
has been filed. It has been amply demonstrated over the years that this facilitates settle- 
ment in that damages do not continue to multiply beyond the limits of a respondent's 
ability to pay. 

The ERP process also brings to light those cases where the act complained of may 
be unfair rather than illegal. In these cases, settlement may also be possible, as it gives 
the parties an opportunity to discuss the issues without blame being accessed. 




13 



i 



66 



How To File 
a Complaint 



55 



If you believe you have been discriminated against in employment, ho 
ing, public accommodations, credit or education, you may file a complaint 
person or by mail with any of the Commission's Regional Offices. If you ar 
unable to file a complaint in person, you may call one of the Commission's 
Regional Offices, explain the details and ask that a complaint be prepared 
and mailed to you for your review and signature. 

Rule 3:02 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure specifies that a com 
plaint must be filed within six (6) months after the alleged discriminatory a 
occurred. 

All complaints filed with the Commission should contain the following 
information: 

• List of names, titles, business addresses and telephone numbers of th< 
charged with having committed an alleged unlawful discriminatory 

• A summary of the specific acts of alleged unlawful discrimination, 
including dates. 

• The details of any financial losses suffered as a result of the alleged 
unlawful discriminatory act. 

Your complaint will be assigned to the Regional Office located closest i 
the place of business of the person(s) charged. A determination will be issut 
following an investigation. 

If a lack of Probable Cause determination is made, you will have ten (1 
days after the date of service to appeal to the Office of the General Counsel. 
After a preliminary hearing and review, the Investigating Commissioner 
may affirm, remand or reverse the finding. 

If Probable Cause is found, the Commission will seek through con- 
ciliation, to secure your rights and to eliminate any unlawful discrimina- 
tory practice. 

If conciliation effiarts fail, your complaint will be certified for Public 
Hearing by the Investigating Commissioner. Following Public Hearing, a 
decision will be issued by the Hearing Commissioner assigned. If the Com- 
missioner finds that the discrimination took place, a "Cease and Desist" 
order will be issued, as well as order equitable and monetary awards. The 
Commission will go to court whenever necessary to enforce "Cease and 
Desist" orders. 



14 



Legal Division 



1982 was a year of change and improvement for the 
Commission's Legal Division. By the end of 1981, the 
legal staff had been reduced to three attorneys and was 
facing a considerable backlog of cases requiring its im- 
mediate attention. During 1982, however, this situation 
was substantially turned around. 

Perhaps the most important step taken was that of 
hiring a new General Counsel and the expansion of the 
division's legal staff. Its current staff of nine attorneys, 
including for the first time two who specialize in hous- 
ing discrimination matters, now possesses a wide range 
of experiences in all aspects of civil rights law and 
htigation. 

In supervising and coordinating the work of the 
Commission's nine lawyers and several interns. General 
Counsel Edward Doocey has emphasized streamlining 
and the use of time-tested legal techniques for processing 
cases. As a result, the Legal Divison has earned a well- 
deserved respect among 



The Legal Division's current staff 
nine attorneys now possesses a wide 
ige of experiences in all aspects of 
il law and litigation. It has earned a 
U-deserved respect among the Com- 
mwealth's civil rights legal fraternity. 



the Commonwealth's 
civil rights legal 
fraternity. 

A close working 
relationship between 
Commissioners and 
Commission lawyers has 
enabled the Commission 
to realize or exceed many 
quantitative and qualitative goals. Major accomplish- 
ments of the legal division in 1982 included the follow- 
ing activities: 

• Issued 31 hearing decisions and decisions of the Full 
Commission. This very productive session represents 
a record number of decisions promulgated in a single 
year. 



• Awarded in excess of $300,000 to Complainants. 

• Conducted 26 full adjudicatory public hearings. 

• Held five Calls of the List (four in Boston and one in 
Springfield) which moved an additional 132 cases 
along in the process. 

• Conciliated 73 cases for a total recovery to Complain- 




ants of $275,000. 

• Reduced the backlog of cases in the divison from 357 
to 213, with reduction particularly targeted towards 
older cases. 

• Instituted a series of management control systems to 
more closely track and evaluate legal case processing 
and attorney performance. 

Among the thirty decisions issued by the Commis- 
sion, in the past year, were a number of cases which 
dealt with significant legal issues. 

Boiven v. Colonnade Hotel: A Full Commission decision 
which set forth a new standard for proving discrimina- 
tion through deterrence, and back pay, front pay and 
emotional damages. 

IPcnd V. Ford, et ah A Full Commission decision affirm- 
ing the Commission's inherent discretionary power to 
order Respondents to advertise apartment vacancies in 
local newspapers. 

Gonsalves v. Plymouth School Dept.: A Full Commission 



IS 



decision affirming a Hearing Commissioner's inherent 
discretionary power not to deduct unemployment bene- 
fits from back pay awards. 

Heath v. Town oj Greenjield Police Dept.: A Single Com- 
missioner decision finding that a female reserve police 
officer had been denied promotion and equal terms and 
conditions of employment on the basis of sex, and was 
subsequently retaliated against for fihng a complaint; 
and ordering Respondent to pay her approximately 
$32,000.00 plus interest for lost wages and emotional 
distress, and to hire three women to the permanent 
force. 

Jones V. Liberty Mutual, et al: A Full Commission decision 
affirming the finding of a Hearing Commissioner that 
Respondent violated Complainant's civil rights by main- 
taining separate benefit plans for males and unmarried 
females and thereby charging an additional amount for 
pregnancy coverage. 

Baker v. Collazo: A Single Commissioner decision hold- 
ing that the presence of lead paint in an apartment is not 
a defense to a complaint of discrimination in housing on 
the basis of the apartment seeker having a child. 
RaJJerty v. Triple A Restaurant: Decision of a Single Com- 
missioner finding that Respondent restaurant violated 
the state's public accommodation law by refusing to 
serve a blind customer accompanied by a seeing-eye dog. 
Emmons v. Codex Corp.: A Single Commissioner deci- 
sion holding that a claim of sexual harassment is action- 
able under the state's civil rights law. 

In addition to the in-house legal case load, the Legal 
Division staff also represents the Commission in a 
number of court actions. These include: 
Sami V. MCAD — Appeal of MCAD decision raising 



issues on race as a bona fide occupational qualification. 
Decision issued by the Supreme Judicial Court affirming 
the Full Commission decision. 
U.S.Jaycees v. MCAD — Appeal of MCAD finding 
that U.S. Jaycees is a place of public accommodation. 
Oral argument presented to Supreme Judicial Court 
in 1983. 

Chaiken v. MCAD — Superior Court review. 
Buckley Nursing Home v. MCAD — Superior Court 
review. 

Plymouth School Department i>. MCAD — Superior 
Court review. 

Town oj Framin^ham v. MCAD — Superior Court 
review. 

Taunton Redevelopment Authority i'. MCAD — Superior 
Court review. 

Drohan v. MCAD — Superior Court review. 
Liberty Mutual v. MCAD — Superior Court review. 
University Hospital v. MCAD — Declaratory judgment 
action — Superior Court. 

State Mutual v. MCAD — Declaratory judgment action 
— Superior Court. 



16 



Public Sector 
Division 



The Public Sector Division (PSD) has three operat- 
ing units: the Housini^ and Public Accommodations Unit, 
the HUD Grant Unit, and the Civil Rij^hts Review Unit. 

As a consequence of extreme budgetary constraints 
in 1981-1982, the Commission was compelled to trans- 
fer six employees out of Review Units and into Investi- 
gative Units throughout the Commission and to ehmi- 
nate or merge important programs. 

Thus, for example the Compliance Unit was abol- 
ished and several of its functions transfered to the Civil 
Rights Unit. 

A. Housing and Public Accommodations Unit 

1981-1982 witnessed a 30% increase in the num- 
ber of Housing Complaints filed with the Commission. 
This unprecedented increase is attributed to two (2) 
factors: 

1. The Commission's growing reputation for 
effective and timely Housing Complaints; and 
These were years of dramatic 
lange and contrast within the Public 
ector Division. 1981-1982, for instance, 
iw more than a 30 percent increase in 
ousing complaints, while a reduced 

Rights Review staff continued to 
lonitor contract performance reviews of 
lore than 140 Cities and Towns. 

able to expand its housing investigative staff to provide 
more efficient and productive services. In 1982, the 
Commission received 302 housing complaints and 
closed 332 housing complaints. Approximately two- 
thirds of these complaints involve the Title VIII allega- 



2. An extraordinar- 
ily tight housing market 
with extreme competi- 
tion in Housing Units. 

With the assistance 
of approximately 
$287,000 in HUD Fair 
Housing Assistance Pro- 
gram support monies, the 
Commission has been 



tions and were therefore dual-filed with HUD. Under 
the dual-filing process, the Commission assumes the 
federal enforcement role as well. The Commission is, in 
turn, compensated by HUD for its performance in the 
investigation of fair housing complaints. The average 
time required to process a housing case in 1981-1982 
was sixty (60) days, although the vast majority of the 
Commission's housing case investigations were com- 
pleted within thirty (30) days. 

The Commission's decision to reallocate resources 
into its Housing Complaints Investigation Program 
resulted in its meeting or exceeding all Federal Perform- 
ance Standards. It, thus, increased its number of Probable 
Cause Determinations by 4%; decreased its number of 
Lack of Probable Cause Findings by 29.3%; and in- 
creased its Pre Determination Settlements by 19.3%. 

Percentage Growth of Federal Funding 



1975 1982 




11% 43% 
Federal Federal 



17 



Public Accommodations 

The number of public accommodations complaints 
filed by the handicapped with the Commission continued 
to increase. The Commission initiated work on pro- 
posed handicapped guidelines during the calendar year. 

B. HUD Grant Unit 

The MCAD has a well earned reputation for its 
success in acquiring federal grant monies. Without this 
important effort, the Commission could not have imple- 
j mented an effective Housing Program with the less than 
$75,000 allocated to it by the state legislature. 

In 1982, the Commission successfully competed for 
two grants, valued at $300,000. This represents the 
largest grant of money ever allocated by HUD to a state 
or local Fair Housing Enforcement agency. In addition, 
the Commission successfully negotiated two HUD 
Processing Complaints valued at $200,000. 
Performance Requirement 

Federal Grant monies were used to: 

1. Hire badly needed Housing Attorneys and Inves- 
tigators. 

2. Develop and publish the first Systemic Investiga- 
tion Manual for State and Federal use ever produced by a 
state agency. 

3. Initiate a Systemic Investigation Housing Dis- 
crimination Program Contract with seven community 
agencies to provide Fair Housing Complaint Counseling 

II and Intake Services to area residents. Conduct four 
training conferences for advocacy groups and representa- 
tives from real estate agencies. 

C. Civil Rights Review Unit 

II The Civil Rights Review Program has historically 
represented an important aspect of the Commonwealth's 



overall civil rights effort. It is, in fact, the state's most 
direct link between its Affirmative Action Review Poli- 
cies and the various municipalities. Therefore, under- 
funding of this vital program affects thousands of citi- 
zens who look to the Commonwealth for Civil Rights 
relief. 

In addition, underfunding adversely impacts upon 
the many cities and towns which annually turn to the 
Commission for technical assistance necessary to success- 
fully compete for federal and state aid. In 1981-1982, 
the Civil Rights Review Unit reviewed $200 million 
dollars worth of municipal grant applications, but was 
limited in its capacity to provide further technical assist- 
ance to these municipalities or to fully perform Compli- 
ance Enforcement Service to the more than 250 cities 
and towns as mandated by state policies. 




18 



CONTROL UNIT 



COMMISSIONERS (3) 



( li.iirm.in 
( onimissuuKi 
( '(immisMoiK T 



nTrcTtTTrTTI 
Ailiiiinistr.mon f V,k 



1 )i. |nit\ I )ircc tor 
lit Admmi'-tr.itKiii 



ADMIN. SERVICES 



Massachusetts 
Commission 
Against 
Discrimination 



LEGAL 
DIVISION 



( iclHT.ll ( \uillst_ l 



NEW BEDFORD 



INVESTI 
DIVISI 


CiATION 
ON 


1 )iri ^ t.ir 







BOSTON OFFICE 







PUBLIC 
EMPLOYMENT 













WORCESTER 



PUBLIC SECTOR 
DIVISION 



I >in. i tor 



CIVIL RICJHTS 
REVIEW 



HOUSINC; & PUBLIC 
ACCOM. UNIT 



SPRINGFIELD 



WORCESTER 



SPRINCJFIELD 



10 




MCAD 

Advisory 

Board 



Pursuant to M.G.L., Chapter 6, §48, "The Gov- 
ernor shall appoint an advisory board to the Commis- 
sion, consisting of not less than twenty-one persons..." 
Members of the Board are to represent a broad spectrum 
of the citizenry of the Commonwealth including minor- 
ity racial, ethnic and linguistic groups, women, elderly 
and handicapped persons, members of the business com- 
munity in the areas of housing, banking, education and 
labor, and members of the local and regional advisory 
boards. 

The Board functions as both an advisor to the 
Commission and the Governor in matters of policy 
affecting the Commission and as a monitor of the Com- 
mission's programs and policies. 

During 1981 and 1982, the MCAD State Advisory 
Board and the Boston Area Advisory Council met 
jointly. The Boards' activities included a continuous 
review of legislation affecting the Commission as well as 
lobbying efforts on both legislation and the Commis- 
sion's budget, and a thorough review of the Commis- 
sion's activities including case statistics (filed and 
closed), the early resolution process, and the public 
hearing process. 

A revitalized Hampden-Hampshire Advisory 
Council was estabHshed in 1982. The Council has stand- 
ing committees in the areas of legislation, budget re- 
view, the complaint process, and municipal comphance. 



Multi-Cultural 

Awareness Task 
Force 

The Multi-Cultural Awareness Task Force was 
created in June of 1982, through the efforts of Comr 
sioner Kosberg, as an expression of the Commission' i 
concern over the increasing numbers of racial and an( 
Semitic incidents occurring across the Commonweali 

Composed of federal, state and local officials, in 
eluding the Civil Rights Division of the Attorney G' - 
eral's Office, the Massachusetts Department of Educ 
tion, the Community Relations Service of the | 
Department of Justice, and community and civil rigH 
organizations, educators, and other concerned citizer 
the Task Force has been working towards both 
community-wide and educational strategies in dealin 
with this problem. 

As a first step, on October 27, 1982, a Civic Lea 
ership Conference on Racial and Anti-Semitic Violen , 
Vandalism and Hatred was held at the State House. 1 e 
more than 300 municipal leaders attending (Mayors, 
Boards of Selectmen, School Committee chairs, and 
School Superintendents), representing more than 10( 
cities and towns, participated in a consciousness raisii 
session, designed to give them both facts and strategi . 

As part of its "Next Steps Program," the Task 
Force is presently focusing its energies on offering spi 
ciaHzed assistance to communities in the areas of estal 
lishing multi-cultural education programs, training c 
police, school administrators/ teachers, and municipa 
officials, and estabHshing local human rights 
commissions. 



20 




^uture Directions 

I The Commission will continue to 
eview and revise its case processing 
echniques to insure the highest quality 
nd most efficient services attainable, 
likewise, it will continue to vigorously 
pursue state and federal grants to sup- 
ilement its tight budget. 



In the years to come, the Commission will continue to review and revise its case 
processing techniques to insure the highest quality and most efficient services attainable 
under its operational budget. 

As a result of the Commission's highly successful 1981-1982 efforts to eliminate 
its enormous backlog of post determination cases, key Commission staff members will 
be available to recodify the Commission Rules of Procedure and guidelines for mater- 
nity leave, sexual harassment and affirmative action. 

The Civil Rights review program will be reprioritized and restructured to insure 
greater efficiency. Technical assistance to the Commission staff and the agencies of the 
Executive Branch will continue to be a key element of this vital program. 

Blatant acts of violence against Blacks, Hispanics and Jews continue to plague 
our educational system. The Commission will therefore continue to expand its multi- 
cultural awareness program. 

No agency can effectively function unless it has a sound financial basis. Therefore, 
the Commission will thus continue to vigorously pursue state and federal grants to 
supplement its tight budget. 

Statutory amendments will be sought to improve the Commission's efficiency 
and expand the rights of all our citizens. 

Programs to train realtors, businessmen, bankers, community activists and mem- 
bers of local bar associations in civil rights law will be designed and implemented as the 
budget so allows. 



Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination 

1 Ashburton Place Boston, MA, 02108 617/727-3990 

145 State Street Springfield, MA 01103 413/739-2145 

222 Union Street New Bedford, MA 02740 617/997-3191 

75A Grove Street Worcester, MA 01605 617/752-2272 



COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 



COMMISSION 



AGAINST DISCRIMINATION 



' • ■ Vv- 



ANNUAL REPORT 
JULY 1, 1983 TO JUNE 30, 1984 



ALEX RODRIGUEZ, CHAIRMAN 
MARGOT P. KOSBERG, COMMISSIONER 

f FREDERICK A. HURST, COMMISSIONER 

, MR 

261.7 

MUlfr 

1983/81+ 
c. 2 



PUBLICATION: 14383-25-150-3-86-C .R. 

APPROVED BY: Daniel Carter, State Purchasing Agent 



1 

A LONG HISTORY 



MORE THAN A CENTURY PASSED 

Massachusetts has been a forerunner in the fight against 
discriminatory practices. More than a century has passed 
since the Commonwealth took its first step against 
discrimination. In 1855, six years before the Civil War, 
the General Court (the state legislature) passed a law to 
prohibit "any bias on account of race, color or religious 
opinions of the applicant or scholar in the public school 
system." Ten years later, the General Court enacted the 
first state law in the country that outlawed discrimination 
in public accommodations. In bold language, the law states 
that: 

No distinction, discrimination or restriction on 
account of color or race shall be lawful in any 
licensed inn, in any public place of amusement, 
public conveyance or public meeting in the 
Commonwea 1 th . 

EMPLOYMENT: "NO IRISH NEED APPLY" 

Although Massachusetts may have been one of the first states 
to prohibit discrimination in public education and public 
accommodations, discrimination in employment was not only legal 
but common practice in Massachusetts well into the twentieth 
centry . 

"No Irish Need Apply" was as common in late 19th century 
employment advertisements as "Equal Opportunity Employer" is 
today. However, at that time, there was no law in Massachusetts 
to prevent it. Many first and second generation Americans 
were not hired, or were denied access to better jobs, simply 
because of their national origin. In spite of these laws 
and others passed since those times, discrimination still 
exists . 



2 



THE FIRST "MCAD": THE MASSACHUSETTS FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES 
COMMISSION 

In 1944, a special committee of the state legislature was 
formed to investigate discrimination in employment in 
Massachusetts. Many Massachusetts legislators and their 
families had themselves experienced job discrimination as first 
generation Americans in the early years of the twentieth 
century. From personal experience, they knew what it meant 
to be discriminated against. This special committee 

recommended this important law, which was passed in 1946 
by the General Court: 

It is hereby declared the public policy of 
the Commonwealth that it is necessary to 
protect and safegaurd the right and 
opportunity of inhabitants of this 
Commonwealth to obtain, hold and continue 
in the unabridged enjoyment and benefit of 
gainful employment without discrimination 
or abridgement because of race, religion, 
color, national origin or ancestry. It is 
likewise recognized that both justice and 
public interest demand a policy to give 
to persons of equal ability, regardless 
of race, religion, color, national origin or 
ancestry, fair and equal opportunity to obtain 
and to hold gainful employment, and for 
advancement therein. (Massachusetts General 
Laws, Chapter 368, Sec. 4) 

It was clear that an enforcement agency was also needed. 
In establishing the Fair Employment Practices Commission, 
Massachusetts became the third state, preceded only by New 
York and New Jersey (1945) , to create an agency to enforce 
civil rights legislation. The primary functions of the new 
agency were "to receive, investigate and pass upon complaints 
alleging discrimination in employment because of race, color, 
religious creed, national origin or ancestry." The Commission 
was directed to "endeavor to eliminate the unlawful employment 
practice complained of, by conference, conciliation and 



I. 



3 



persuasion." Offending employers were to be ordered to "cease 
and desist" and to take affirmative action in redressing 
their discriminatory acts. The name of the Commission was 
changed to the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination 
(MCAD) in 1950. 

THE MCAD IN THE 60 'S, 70 'S AND BO'S 

Since 1946, the responsibilities of the MCAD have been greatly 
enlarged to cover not only discrimination in employment and 
public accommodations but also in housing, credit, and 
education. The categories of people that the MCAD serves 
now include people between the ages of 40 and 65, women 
or men discriminated against because of their sex, pregnant 
women, handicapped people, persons with children in public 
and private housing, and welfare recipients in housing. These 
jurisdictional changes are the result of new laws and new 
court decisions in the field of civil rights, both at the 
federal and the state levels. 

During this period of expanding responsibilities, the MCAD's 
work load increased dramatically. In the eighteen years 
between December 1946 and December 1964, the MCAD processed 
4,865 complaints of all types. In the seventies, the number 
of complaints averaged about 1,700 a year, six times the 
average annual caseload of the Commission's first eighteen 
years. Also, in the early years of the Commission, the 
complaints focused on discrimination against Blacks. In the 
70 's, however, the nature of complaints broadened to include 
significant additional categories in greater numbers, 
reflecting the changing focus of antidiscrimination 
legislation. 

The most recent extension of jurisdiction occured in March 
1984 when the new law protecting handicapped persons from 
employment discrimination took effect. By year-end, the full 



4 



effect of this statute was unkown, as no clear patterns had 
emerged. Yet, even limited experience with these cases 
indicates they will significantly impact the agency's scarce 
resources. At the midpoint in the 1980 's, the average annual 
case intake has already increased by 10 percent from 1,700 
to 1,870 cases per year. 




I 

I 

y 



5 

THE MCAD TODAY 

THE MCAD COMMISSIONERS 

The Commission itself is composed of three full-time 
commissioners appointed by the Governor. They serve three- 
year staggared terms to maintain continuity in policy and in agency 
direction. Each of the commissioners has i-esponsibility 
for a particular geographic region of the state, as prescribed by 
the 1976 reorganization legislation. As a group, the 
commissioners decide matters of basic policy and guide the operation 
of the agency. 

Commissioner Leon A. Brathwaite II, a graduate of Northeastern 
University was appointed to a three -year term as Chairman in March 
of 1981. He left the Commission when his term expired 
in March of 1984. 

Commissioner Alex Rodriguez, a graduate of Goddard College 
and a former Loeb Fellow at Harvard University, previously served 
as a commissioner from 1977 to 1981. Appointed to a three- 
year term as commissioner in 1984, he has been restoring the positive 
image of the agency amongst the populace it serves, as 
a forceful spokesman for the issues of the day. 

Commission Margot P. Kosberg, a graduate of Western Reserve 
University and Boston University School of Law, is past president 
of the Massachusetts Association of Women Lawyers. She 
is responsible for the Commissions activities in southeastern 
Massachusetts including the New Bedford office and the Cape. Ms. 
Kosberg was appointed in September of 1981 to fill out 
the unexpired term of Sam Stonefield and reappointed to 
a three-year term in March of 1982. 

Commissioner Frederick A. Hurst, a graduate of Howard 
University and DePaul University Law School, is an attorney from 
Springfield, Massachusetts. He is responsible for western 
Massachusetts activities in the Springfield and Worcester 
offices. Mr. Hurst was appointed in March, 1984 to fill 
a two-year unexpired term of Kenneth J. Cote, Jr. who 
had served since 1981. 



6 



AGENCY MISSION 



The mission of the Massachusetts Commission Against 
Discrimination (MCAD) is to promote equal opportunity for 
all persons in the Commonwealth in the areas of employment, 
housing, education, credit, and public accommodations by: 



(1) The enforcement of the state's laws prohibiting 
discrimination on account of race, color, creed, 
sex, national origin, ancestry, age, handicap status, 
marital status, veteran status, criminal 

record status, having children, or receiving 
public assistance; 

(2) The promotion of educational information concerning 
the antidiscrimination laws; 



(3) The systematic review and revision of the employment 
practices of cities and towns within the Commonwealth 
to ensure affirmative action in employment for 
minorities and women; 

(4) The review and the revision of the employment 
practices of state agencies and of state contractors 
to ensure affirmative action in employment for 
minorities, women, and handicapped persons. 



7 



DIVISION OF INVESTIGATIONS 

The Division of Investigations ' primary function is to 
investigate complaints alleging unlawful discrimination 
in employment and educational practices. 

During fiscal year 1984, the Commission received a total 
of 1,937 complaints as compared to 1,802 in fiscal year 
1983 and closed 2,186 complaints as compared to 2,047 
in 1983. 

While fiscal year 1984 provided less financial relief 
for complainants than 1983 ($648,105. in 1984 as oppossed 
to $1,219,130. in 1983), more complainants received 
settlements prior to a finding (367 in 1984 as oppossed 
to 330 in 1983) . 

On December 6, 1983, Governor Michael S. Dukakis signed 
into law Chapter 553 of the Acts of 1983. This statute 
prohibits unlawful discrimination against handicapped 
persons in the area of employment. The MCAD is charged 
with enforcing this legislation. 

The handicap law took effect on March 5, 1984, and there 
is every indication from current filing figures that this 
category will give the Commission an additional 180 cases 
per year to investigate. 

In order to ensure that handicapped complaints are promptly 
addressed and investigated in a timely manner, an increase 
in staffing will be absolutely necessary. Unlike Title 
VII, Title VIII, and age discrimination cases in which 
there is similar federal jurisdiction and for which the 
Commission has contractual agreements with the responsible 
federal agencies yielding per case payments, in handicap 



4 



I 



8 



cases there is no similar federal jurisdiction/ therefore, 
there is no possibility of payments from any federal agency 
for processing handicap cases and state funding must bear 
the total cost of enforcement. 

The Division of Investigations, in addition to the in-house 
informational and referral assistance it offers to the 
general public, provided investigators for public speaking 
engagements at the request of various groups interested 
in the jurisdictional areas and investigative techniques 
used by the Commission in processing complaints. , 



II 



! 



PUBLIC SECTOR DIVISION 

Fair Housing Enforcement Program 



The MCAD Fair Housing Enforcement Program continued to expand 
during the year. The agency's competitive grant application, 
filed with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 
was once again ranked first of all grant applicantions filed 
by over 50 state and local agencies. MCAD initiated a major 
testing program to determine the level of racial discrimination 
in broker-controlled private rental markets in the cities 
of Cambridge and Somerville. The purpose of this systemic 
testing program was (1) to discover the extent and types 
of discrimination existing in these two communities and (2) 
to identify and bring enforcement action against those rental 
agents who violate fair housing laws. 

This extensive testing effort revealed that discrimination 
against blacks was widespread. Nine of the twelve agencies 
investigated appeared to violate one or more fair housing 
laws. The forms of discrimination are subtle. The illegal 
practices included denial of availability, steering, and 
quoting adverse terms and conditions of housing. 

In September 1983, MCAD charged nine real estate agencies 
and twenty-one rental agents with violations of the law. 
Following full investigation, eight of nine agencies and 
seventeen of the twenty-one rental agents were found to be 
in apparent violation of the law, and probable cause findings 
were issued. Following failure to conciliate, the majority 
of the complaints against both agencies and agents were 
certified for public hearing. 

Based on the quality of evidence obtained in the systemic 
enforcement program, the United States Department of Justice 
in Washington asked the MCAD to defer to it investigation 



10 



and enforcement action in the federal courts on three of 
the cases. MCAD thus became the first state agency in the 
country to enter into a work-sharing Memorandum of Agreement 
with the Department of Justice to provide for joint federal 
and state fair housing enforcement action. 

In addition to the Cambridge/Somerville activity, MCAD also 
conducted systemic investigations of a number of other real 
estate agencies in conjunction with the Boston Fair Housing 
Commission and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. 
Complaints have also been initiate^ and investigated against 
public housing authorities in the Commonwealth. 

Individual Complaint Enforcement Activity 

The number of complaints filed with MCAD continued to increase 
during the year. The expansion in housing complaint intake 
for individual charges is at the rate of 22 percent per 
year. It is anticipated that by the end of FY '85 MCAD 
will be processing approximately 450 housing complaints per 
year. The agency also receives funding as a consequence 
of a work-sharing agreement with HUD for the processing of 
Title VIII complaints. MCAD is slated to receive $140,000 
from HUD for this purpose. During fiscal year 1984, 
approximately 12 percent of the complaints resulted in findings 
of probable cause and 30 percent resulted in pre-determination 
settlements with the benefit to the complainants. The balance 
of the complaints resulted in lack of probable cause, lack 
of jurisdiction, or administrative closures. The financial 
awards to complainants increased substantially during this 
year. 



11 



civil Rights Review Program 

During the past year, the staff of the Civil Rights Review 
Program continued to process compliance reviews of 
discretionary grant applications from municipalities; to 
provide technical assistance; and to monitor and oversee 
the development and implementation of municipal affirmative 
action plans in the areas of employment, fair housing, and 
contract compliance and the Minority Business Enterprise 
Program (MBE) . 

Approximately 180 cities and towns, with populations in excess 
of 10,000, are actively pursuing the , development and 
implementation of affirmative action plans. 

MCAD staff conducted approximately 800 reviews of grant 
applications from municipalities, principally with the 
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs. The MCAD is 
currently negotiating, and anticipates development of, a full 
review program with the state Executive Office of Communities 
and Development during the 1985 fiscal year. 

LOOKING AHEAD 

MCAD has been notified that its third grant year application 
of $150,000 for systemic housing enforcement was again ranked 
as the highest competitive application received. As a 
consequence, the systemic testing and enforcement program will 
continue throughout fiscal year 1985. 

HDD has also selected MCAD to be one of the two primary 
presentors systems, methodology, and outcome, utilizing 
systemic testing and enforcement procedures, at a national 
training conference to be conducted by HUD in December 1984. 
MCAD will, as a consequence of this seminar, present papers 
and develop, for the benefit of enforcement agencies at the 



12 



state and local level throughout the country methodology, 
systems, and accomplishments achieved under the systemic 
program. 

Given the extraordinary rate of discrimination which the 
systemic program has demonstrated exists in housing markets 
in the Commonwealth, a request for a budget increase has 
been submitted to the legislature. At present the state 
provides a meagre $70,000 in funding (compared to $355,000 
received from HUD) for fair housing enforcement statewide. 
With a discrimination rate of 60 to 70 percent based on 
color, it is apparent that MCAD efforts will not succeed 
until additional state resources are made available. 

With the addition of four staff persons in the Civil Rights 
Review Program, who will be available in January of 1985, 
MCAD anticipates an expansion of that program's activities. 
Inlcuded in the program expansion will be a reconstitution 
and revitalization of the affirmative action program in the 
construction industry in the Commonwealth. Additionally, as 
a consequence of the program's staff expansion, a new 
relationship will be developed with the Executive Office of 
Communities and Development and potentially with other 
secretariats . 



13 



CASE CONTROL DIVISION 

The Case Control Division bears the primary responsibility 
for effective management of the agency's case inventory. It 
performs the vital function of providing the Commission 
and its managers with accurate, reliable, and timely 
information upon which to base its decisions regarding the 
allocation of the agency's resources. 

The division operates from a computerized data base, which 
contains all relevant information pertaining to each complaint 
in the case inventory. One of the most useful and unusual 
features of the Commission's Management Information Systems 
(MIS) is its capacity to determine how much time has elapsed 
since the last activity took place on a particular case. 
This data enables managers to isolate stagnant cases and 
to identify bottlenecks in the progress. 

Part of the process includes a work-sharing relationship with 
MCAD's federal counterpart, the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission (EEOC) . To avoid duplication of effort, MCAD 
refers cases to EEOC for investigation. Upon completion 
the results of EEOC's efforts are reviewed and, in most cases, 
adopted. Case Control has recently been used to monitor 
this process as well as the agency's internal operation. 
In fiscal year 1974, the division identified a bottleneck 
of over 450 cases at EEOC. Through a reallocation of resources, 
that number had been reduced almost 33 percent by year's 
end. 

Staff caseloads and production are monitored through weekly 
and monthly reports. With this support system, division 
managers are now able to identify individual staff members 
who may require assistance and/or supplemental training. MIS 
is also used to locate procedural impediments. 



14 



The Case Control Division performs on an ongoing basis critical 
review of divisional interaction designed to refine and/or 
replace existing procedures. During fiscal year 1984, the 
division took a close look at the agency's data processing 
needs. Much of the agency was still operating with manual 
support systems. Even the agency's MIS was becoming obsolete 
by industry standards. As a result, the ground work has 
been laid for the introduction of microcomputers into the 
agency in fiscal year 1985. In addition. Case Control completed 
an analysis of ways to upgrade the MIS which will result 
in the agency "going on-line" in fiscal year 1985. On-line 
capability will improve the accuracy and timeliness of 
information by 60 percent. This capacity should enhance 
our ability to provide a sophisticated analysis of trends 
in the civil rights field. 



15 



LEGAL DIVISION 



Nineteen eighty-four was a year in which the Commission's 
legal division consolidated and continued earlier gains. The 
trends established during 1982, the first year of the 
administration of current General Counsel Edward C. Doocey, 
progressed unabated. 



The Legal Division, consisting of the General Counsel, seven 
staff attorneys, one clerical support staff person, and several 
part-time student interns, contains the talent, experience, 
and skills, including multi lingualism, necessary to deal 
with all aspects of civil rights law, litigation, and service 
to all segments of the Commonwealth's population. 



These resources have enabled the Legal Division, working in 
close harmony with the three MCAD Commissioners, to achieve 
new high levels of performance in the three key areas of: 
(1) hearings and decisions, (2) court litigation, and (3) 
case processing. Specific major accomplishments include the 
following: 



Assisted the Commissioners in issuing a total 
of 47 decisions, including both hearing 
decisions and full Commission decisions, 
far outstripping the previous record of 
34 such decisions set in 1983. Each 
of these decisions constitutes a final 
(albeit reviewable) , dispositive adjudication on 
the merits of a discrimination case. In 
conformance with Supreme Judicial Court 
opinions, each of the hearing decisions 
includes a complete set of findings-of -fact 
including all subsidiary f indings-of-f act 
reflecting a complete consideration of all 
evidence presented at hearing. Moreover, 
each such hearing decision grants effective 
relief, including, in cases where the 
complainant prevails and to the extent the 
evidence so warrants, reinstatement, promotion, 
adjustments in working conditions, 
cease-and-desist orders, prospective affirmative 



I 

I 

I 



I 



16 



action relief, admission to housing or a 
place of public accommodation, back pay, 
front-pay, damages for lost housing opportunities, 
emotional damages, and interest. 

These decisions made or affirmed awards 
totalling, in the aggregate, $315,420. 

Due to the record number of decisions in 
1984 as well as the high number of decisions 
in 1983, the legal staff was able to close 30 
cases in which such a decision had been 
rendered. This figure represents a continued 
steady increase since 18 such closures were 
achieved in 19 80, the first year for which 
such data is available. This figure of 30 
closures includes many cases in which the 
parties immediately abided by the decision of 
the Hearing Commissioner. In other cases, the 
Commission had to await vindication on court 
appeals. In all of these cases, the Commission's 
trial process was implemented and the 
principals of antidiscrimination law were 
visibly effectuated. The Commission's willingness 
to press these cases to a final conclusion 
creates the credibility necessary to 
secure the vast number of voluntary 
settlements which the Commission achieves. 

As a predicate to the outstanding number of 
decisions issued, a total of 18 full public 
hearings (trials) were held during the 
fiscal year. This, again, represents 
continued improvement. Each of these 
hearings was presided over by one of the 
MCAD Commissioners, not by outside 
hearing officers. Thus, the Commission 
avoided procedural uncertainties and 
maintained full control over the administrative 
construction and vindication of the anti- 
discrimination law. Each of these hearings 
is conducted with the full panoply of due 
process rights and procedural protections 
associated with court proceedings, including 
examination, cross-examination, compulsory 
process, recognition of evidentiary privileges, 
and compliance with the rules of evidence. 

The Commission's court work is not 
restricted to appeals and petitions regarding 
final Commission decisions. Special actions 
are sometimes initiated by or against the 
Commission in court on an emergency basis 



17 



before the Commission process has run its 
course. Nine such cases were resolved in 
the courts during fiscal year 1984, either by 
court ruling or by voluntary dismissal. All 
of these cases were unequivocally resolved 
in the Commission's favor. In sum, out of a 
total of 18 court decisions, the Commonwealth 
prevailed on 17 and can be proud of its record 
in all. 

A total of 192 cases were closed by the Legal 
Division during fiscal year 1984. This record 
surpasses all previous closure records. 

Progress continues to be made in reducing the 
backlog of pending cases in the Legal Division. 
There was an 11 percent drop in the number of 
cases pending at the end of the previous fiscal 
year, and there was an aggregate 41 percent drop 
from the number of pending cases docketed at the 
end of calendar year 1980. It should be noted that 
the backlog includes a number of cases in which 
action has been suspended due to ongoing proceedings 
in other forums. These cases are essentially out of 
the Legal Division's control. 

The 192 closures achieved by the Legal Division in 
fiscal year 1984 included cases in which plaintiffs 
received the aggregate amount of $355,279. This 
figure does not include amounts awarded at hearings 
but now under appeal. 



18 



ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT DIVISION 

The Administrative Support Division provides office support 
for the Commission at its Boston headquarters and at three 
locations across the Commonwealth. The Division is directly 
responsible for the daily management of personnel, including 
payroll functions, purchasing, accounting, maintenance 
of physical plant, and other support activities. Another 
prime responsibility of the division is that of developing 
the Commission's annual state and federal budgets. This 
administrative area has become increasingly more complex 
with the growth of the federal contracts awarded to the 
Commission, while, at the same time, the state legislature 
has imposed new procedures and controls for handling federal 
monies. These increased workload demands may require 
augmentation of the division's personnel in the near future. 

In addition to meeting daily needs of the Commission's 
statewide operation, the administrative support division 
provides liaison to a number of state and federal agencies 
and departments. Included among these are the state offices 
of Administration & Finance, Budget Bureau, Personnel 
Division, Group Insurance Commission, Purchasing Division, 
State Treasurer, Office of the Comptroller, the Senate 
and House Ways and Means Committees, and the federal Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission. 

Another continuing responsibility of the Administrative 
Support Division is that of providing informational services 
for the Commission. This function includes the development 
and distribution of brochures, posters, and other 
communications to the Commission's field offices, community 
and municipal centers, public service and neighborhood 
groups, and the business community. 



19 



MCAD STATISTICAL SUMMARY 



CASES FILED 

CASES CLOSED 

YEAR END INVENTORY 



1980 
1964 

1867 

2251 



1982 
2009 

1767 

2563 



1982 
1641 

2145 

2163 



1983 * 
1802 

2064 

2114 



1984 * 
1937 

2187 

1893 



*************** 



CASE CLOSURES BY DISPOSITION 



1980 1981 1982 1983* 1984 * 

LACK OF PROBABLE CAUSE 918 802 1101 997 978 

LACK OF JURISDICTION 78 74 81 77 164 

WITHDRAWN 172 192 173 176 157 

SETTLEMENT 280 334 386 336 398 

ADMINISTRATIVE 214 217 228 282 292 

CONCILIATED 137 48 73 60 58 

STATE COURT 50 79 86 96 110 

FINAL ORDER 18 21 17 40 30 

1867 1767 2145 2064 2187 



* FISCAL YEAR 



20 



CASE CLOSINGS 



FY 8 4 



JULY 

AUG . 

SEPT 

OCT. 

NOV. 

DEC . 

JAN. 

FEB. 

MAR . 

APR. 

MAY 

JUNE 



LOPC 

92 
77 
69 
66 
87 

106 
63 
76 
99 
66 
64 

113 



LOJ 

31 
17 
15 
15 
18 

7 

9 
10 

9 
10 

9 
14 



W 

17 
19 

4 
10 
35 
12 

7 
12 

7 
10 
16 

8 



PDS 

26 
25 
35 
23 
67 
47 
32 
31 
15 
23 
25 
49 



ADM 

15 
19 
19 
17 
30 
25 
67 
40 
10 
17 
16 
17 



CON 

9 
3 
2 
7 
9 
2 
6 
2 
4 
3 
5 
6 



478 

1 
13 
4 
5 
7 
9 
15 



ORD TOTAL 



29 
10 



1 - 

3 - 

1 - 

2 - 

2 - 

- 

1 - 

3 - 

4 - 
4 - 
1 - 



199 
174 
151 
144 
255 
210 
199 
180 
148 
141 
168 
218 



TOTALS 



978 



164 



157 



398 



292 



58 



110 



30 



2187 



KEY: 



DOPC 


- Lack of Probable Cause 


ADM 


- Administration 


LDJ 


- Lack of Jurisdiction 


CON 


- Conciliated 


W 


- Withdrawn 


478 


- Removed to State Court 


PDS 


- Pre-Determination Settlement 


ORD 


- Final Orders 



21 



BUDGET REVIEW BY FISCAL YEAR 



1975 - 1984 



1975 
979,000 
125 ,000 
1,104 ,000 



1981 
1 ,055 , 000 
554 ,000 



1 , 138,00 
1 , 009 , GO 
2, 147,00 



1983 



1980 

. 1,609,000 1,005,000 

1,000 ,000 

1,054,000 



1 G 7 Q 



393,000 
1 ,393,000 



975 ,000 
691,000 
1,666, 500 



2 ,059,000 



/ 



1932 
933,000 
7 3,000 
1,636,000 



19 



7 8 5,000 
3 2 0,000 
1 , 105,000 



1978 
795,000 
245,000 
1,040,000 



1976 



731,000 
185,000 

9 1 fi . nnn 



22 



hCAD STAFFING LEVELS 



■1' ; 



FEDERALLY FONDED GRMT PoSiTioMS 
TOTAL FEDERAL AMD STPfVE FUKiDETi POSITIOMS 




/%1 



mi 



■/'?73 



mi 



20 



2/ 



24 







1 
1 


1 
J 



30 



65" 



70 



9Z 



/o 



23 



MCAD STAFFING LEVELS 



TO 



/no 



FEDERALLY FUNDED GRan^t PosiTiokJs 
Total Fsdeh^al f\\i\> state: f=Hjr4D£> PosmoM^ 



1 1 ! 1 1 
1 i 1 1 1 




mi 



/?78 



/3 



75 



60 



.Li , , / , A 




1 

i 1 








IL- 


1 



44 



US 



mo 



' ' I ' I . I I 



^1 



I 



24 



MCAD STAFFING LEVELS 



nv- 



Total froeHfil STTITT FuM7>ci> PosiTi^rMS 



lOr, 



mi 



IM 'I I ! i; 



! 1 



/3 



1 i 



-LL.J i_L_!_LL 



51 




IT) 

h 
UJ 

m 

D 
I 
U 
< 

< 

iL 



I 
h 
J 
< 
llJ 

z 




u 

UJ 

I 
h 



I- 
z 

u 

^ 
I- 

< 

Q. 

UJ 

D 

hi 
> 

I- 
D 
U 
UJ 
X 

U 




C/3 



O 
O 



C £ 



E M-l 

(B 

U 
X) 



c 

O <^ ' ' 

u) o u 

E 



a; 

S ^ 
^ u 



c 

CU W n 
Wo; 



w u <1J 

CO -H 

(0 c c 
ZOO) 

■H 73 

S " 

x: E 



c 

o 

•pH 

4-) 

c 

u 
w 

O T3 



y-i o 
o -u 

Qi -O 

C (U 

-P 


w > 

m oj 

J T3 

w C 

4J O 
-P -H 

01 !/) 

CO to 
fO 

to o 

CO 
X 

i) 
> 



4-1 

CO 

0) 

4J 

fO 

+J 

CO 

•p 

CO 

u 

•H 

4-1 

01 

x: 

4-1 



4-1 


x; 

4-1 
I— I 

ns 

? 

c 

o 

E 
E 
O 

u 
dJ 

Eh 



. . 0) 4J 
CO (fl > 3 
■ • 3 -H O 

cr w X) 

t/3 03 
CP M 



4-1 

C > 

0) 0) 
T3 



C d) 

o x: 

•H 4J 
4-1 

U 
3 4J 



•H 

4-1 m 



CO 

3 ^ 

CO 



0) 
CP 
T3 03 
C P 

(C3 <U 



4-1 >i 



4-1 "3 

o to 



03 



CO 

•S,4J T3 
2^ CO O 

Q 

« 3 ^ 

X 

g o 

a; -H 

4J 4J 



E 

Si 
3 



4J C 

CJ -H 

(U 

4J 05 

O ^ 

^1 C 

o I 
^ > 

o 

a 

E 



C 

•r-l 
P 

3 
T3 

T3 

(U 

x: 

CO 



4J 

m c 

01 

4-1 E 

O (U 
CP 
4-1 (0 

c c 

03 

a 
o 

> 



T3 



^ > 



03 

CP O M n 
■PC 

CJ -H CO ^ 
0) 4-1 ^ 
4J ^ 

-H CP'O 
3 -H C 
CLQQ 



M 03 -H 



3 4J 
4-1 

CO 

to ^ 

U m 
^•^ 

3 4J 

> 

•H 
CO 4J 
4J U 
03 



c 

flj 03 

4J " 
CO 
« 4J 

c 

Q.-H 
(0 OJ 



a 

E 

O 
CJ 

u 

03 

c 

0) 
01 
XI 

OJ 

> 

03 

4J 

03 • 

x: CO 

4-1 U 

03 

tj^ 0) 
C >i 

■H 

CO 
CO 
OJ 

u 
o 
»H 



a 03 



TD to 0) 

C Q to QJ 

0) t-i 03 x: 

x: < u 4-1 





o 

CO 



3 

o 
o 

c 

'55 
3 
O 



0) 




c 


T) 


o 






•a 


o 


Ol 


> 


73 


0) 






a 


■2 






o 




g 


Q 




< 


U 









cn 
o 

O 

c 

o 



n 

(A 

c 
'55 

o 

to 
c 

O) 
(A 

ti 

o 

(U 

D- 

tx 

to 

C 

nj 

01 

X 
H 



o 

M 

c 
'55 

(A 

o 



a 
c 

o 
o 
C 

3 
to 



3 
g 

o 

P 



O 



"o 

g 

o 

u 
o 
XI 
o 

c 

I 

to 
g 



c 
o 
c 

g 

o 

o 
X 
H 



g 

01 
CA 

:a 

o 
3 

o 

u 
O 

to 
c 

IS 

lA 



.Si 

03 

a 
P 



X « 
2J Ol 
Ol 



°1 



re 
to 
Si 

5 01 "5 



o 

»- T3 
O 
01 

o 
re 



£ o 



1 I 



re 



01 
(A 

3 
re 

Ol 



Ol 

lA ^ 

3 

re . 
a >^ 
re 

V- C 

01 o 

•5 

c t 
re 

•i « 

^3 

to-° 

^ • 

C ™ 

•3 to 

d o) 



j:: o 

8 

01 re 

QJ 

Ol o 
g ^ 

•— « (A 

>^ 

3 

O ^ 
■•El V, 

re 

»H 01 

O "X 



re 
g 

o c 

f 55 

3 o 

re Ol 

§ QJ 

3 (A 

QJ O 

X Ti 



"3 .g 

3 t3 

O "5 
Ol 

rv C 
O 

< ^ 

O 

3 

o 



5 g 



QJ £ 

"a, V 

c 

QJ O 

QJ 3 

CO Jc^ 

re is 
o 

r "5 

X g 

V O 

tA 

01 (A 
(A (A 
tA QJ 



u 

c 

CA 3 

>~. re 
T3 X 



X re j3 

3 3 

QJ 01 

g g 



o 

Ol 

D- . 

OJ^ 

s §- 

.4-> QJ 

3 £X 

^ 5i 

QJ re 

C "? 

re <u 

QJ XT 

(A QJ 

QJ ;s 

^ T3 



:3 3 

QJ < 

1.3 

. 

i: QJ 

X 
Ol "3 

o o 

QJ O 

QJ to 

X -c 

o ^ 

% to 

> 3 

Q 'S 

<: ^ 

S .g 

<i 

3 £i 
T3 Ol 



X re 



O 

bJO 

0) 
cn 

TS 
u 
a 

o 

cn 
t« 

0) 

>-i 

bO 

O 



o 

Ml 
C 

v< 

O 

a, 



C 



.s 

a- 

c/5 to 

Q ^ 

(1 ° 



T3 



o 



o 



o 



a 



O 



'So 
tn 
O 
CL 
CO 

nj 

CD 

"a 
o 
o 
D- 

>^ 
c 



to 

c . 



T3 
C 



I-. 

cn 
o 

to 
c 



c 

o 

in 
o 

a. 

T3 

o 
Q- 
Cu 
ro 

-5 

C 

03 



o 

c 

o 

o 



o 

u. 

Cl. 

o 

to 
c 

03 



X 



o 
_> 

GJ 

o 

T3 
C 

C 

o 



^ O 



03 
O 

c 

o 

e 

B 
o 
U 



to 
c 



tfl - 
o --^ 

k. O 

CJ </) 

C 03 

— O 

o b 
c 

(« 

? o 

to o 

03 ?i 



on 



C ^ 

cn y 
cn 3 
Qj cn 

to .2 
o x; 



P cn 

03 

> £ 
"3 It 

c 

I O 



cn tj 
03 --3 

C 

cn .9 
>^ 'cn 
03 -r 

.> 
HI D 

I- 

2 O 
o tj 
> o 

03 cn 

^ 3 .9i 
•£ ^ 

^ 03 

3 >*- C 
C O 3 

£ i2 £ 

-3 f~ 
T3 ^ iG 

, cn 



T3 
3 

O 



3: o 



03 :3 
>~. 03 

> 



T3 

O 



O ^ 
T3 O 

3 i:: 
o o 

D- C 



>r S ^ 



ex.. 2 ?a 
fco g o 
■S > 

cn 

° ^ P 
O C 

o to "(3 
£ .5 ^ 
to S^i 8 

C O (/5 
.3 O >- 

boo 
3 u > 
T3 D- O 



a; *5 



o 

T3 

03 



3 ^ 

O OS 

g 03 

to-- 

03 03 

3 3 
to 

3 o 

T3 £ 
O 

O 3 - 

to—' : 

15 



- 03 



— 03 

^ O cn 
CJ tn cn 



-a 

^ 

-3 p- cn 



CJ 

3 



O 

2 o 



3 

^ o 

O to 



§-9 

o . 



3 

'Si 
05 

6 



•T3 

o 



t: 3 o 

{X 3 3 

3 - 
3 



o 

CJ -Q 

05 -t- 

cn cn 



N 
O 
3 

to 

"C 3 

13 03 

< U 





< 



ISSN'S 



c 2 



(J 



E a* 



C 

o 



O 

w 
Z 

S « 

V) 

O 

u 



O O 



OJ ^ t« tfl 



£ o 

.£ cr 
o u 



§■§ 

to « 

•2 I 

to c 

5 

3 O 

m ii 
o 



=^ £ 



to 

N (0 
60 ^ 



C ^ 

o 

ex c 

p (0 

c 

m 



ON fa 



u 
73 
O 

X 



O c/5 



U 

c 

o 



03 
> 

X 



o 

o 
o 



W U/ ^ VJ 

|_ Q U ■4-1 



"2 

1 s 

00 3 
tn 



£ 5 

£ ^ 
o 'o 



I/) 



3 

in 
I/) 



O 3 

X Q 



^ o 

-B u 



.-3 X > 



£ tn 



CO "3 



u> r- 

C '-' D 

.2 g S 

S 



pom 
.3 X! C 



0) 



c 
£ 

CJ 

c 



01 

> 
o 



03 

U 

CO 



C 

o 

(0 



i« 03 



1, 



3 

.3 o 

O 03 



*j O to 




o o 
c c 



CD n 



2 to 

n3 



2 


o 




c 












o 


o 




t7) 
o 








o 
"(S 


o 




l-l 






o 


"en 




a 

u. 




_o 


O 


o 




u 


c 


tivi 




>^ 


u 


c 


'c 




to 




>, 








(0 




c 





D 

B 

B 

o 

_C 

T3 

o 
> 



c 



to ^ 



c 

• ■ re 



D 
C 

> 



> ^ . 

C O 

O CJ 

. 'O 

2 o 

^ "3 

X r£ U 



.Si o 

'-^ in 

C X. 

Cl, ^ 
C/) 

Is 

« c 

S ^ 

.9 o 



11 

U - 

o o 
c 

s ^ 

(X eft 
CL 

re 

rft U Q 



eft 



re 
u 

3 j:: 



^ g 1 

to y C 

re S 

2 O (J 

c I- o 

J-- (ft 

eft o 

^ u O 

^ ' eft 

o 



C3N O 



re 



o o c 
CL Cl o 

CL CL 

re re '2 

eft I- (ft 

"5 CJ ^ 
f3 H O 



™ CD ■< 

¥ S2 



T3 T3 

O X 
^ CJ 



o 

u _ 

re re ' 

Is 



T3 

c 

re 

o" 

to 

CJ 

"o 
U 
c 

re 

Cl 
o 



eft TS 
CJ 

en eft 

> 

re ^ 

— D 

-g 



§ .Si 
o 

3 

to 
O 

"3 t: 



re 
O 



<, re re 



CJ .t: 



eft ^ 
re i_ 



O ej 
JZ CJ 
-1 



c 

c 

o 

"eft 
O 
CQ 

O 
tj 

re 
to 

ii o 

■ — i eft 
O 3 

- o 
c re 

O eft 
eft 

_ CQ ^ 

re "-^ 
to ™ o 

-J o 

- C CJ 

■ - > 

eft O 

(5 ■= 



eft 

re 

eft 
eft 

re 



g 

o 

eft 

re 
a» 
-C 

O 
CD 



'eft 
C 

o 

eft 
CJ 



u 

CJ 
eft 



re 

CJ 



O 

U 



< 




D 
< 
U 

H 
< 
X 



o o 
I— I ■ 

O t/i 

5 2 

^ T3 



c -2 

.9 « 

^ u 



o 
o 

(/) > 

O I- 

u 

a ^ 

■r, o 



o ^ 



(/I 

I- 3 

n "3 

1—1 



.2 « 



o 
U 

C/5 



c 

o 

S 

£ 
o 
U 

o 

(/i o 

T c 

o o 
-c to 



T3 
C 

fO 

<D to 

bJO 2 

■x: C 

"5 c 

o c 

> o 

o « 

u 3 

o to 

S '5 

O) 3 

.2 c 

to CI 

£ >^ 

o 



o 
bO 

> I 

.£ ° 

W3 g 

"5 re 

^ o 



c 

^ £ 
.£ -c 

5 o 
O u. 
O O 

-I 

.£ 

^ £ 



£-2 ^.-^ 



o a, 
U £ 

o <^ 

^ o 

c/) 



> i3 

O 3 

U CT 

^- ^- 

C O 

^ •'H 

,2 o 



!T3 

T3 
C 

£ £ 



3 

o o 



a o 



(0 ra 

o ^ 



S) 

c 



i2 £ 



re 

1 - 

re 

S C '3 

5.^1 
"So 

a» - 

.i2 re o 
t« 

re *j to 



o :3 

^.^ 
re u 

U ^ 
£ re 
o X. 

CJ 



re 



U 



£ 

£ 

o 

.'^ u 
c 

O 

'to ■£ 
to 

^S.£ 

>> o re 

"£"0 60 
O C C 

£ i5 

H ^ C 
C re 

v2 X 

g re o 

^ S3 g 
re o o 



^- tft 
"re 
o 

.i: o 

o 

S c 

■£ £ 

(U o 

£ c 

c <u 

> I 

o J2 

c 
re 



c 
c 

re 

t/5 

o 

C 
3 



to 

£ 

re 
o 



3 

TJ 
re 
o 



o 



3 



<, re re 



« s 

c ^ 

re <u 

o 2 

£ CL 



C 

o 
a 

to 



C 

a 

£ 

o 

to 
1-. 

O X 



o 
to 

re 

o 



fcO 



'0 

3 

O 

"cj 



tJO ^ 
re C 



in 

re P3 
o x> 

c o 

O X! 

S S 
il 

^ <j 
to 

< ^ 

U o 



c 

'5b 



u O 

C re 
o c 



CO 

o o 2 c 
u ^ C re 



5 



t« -6 5 

2 X _ 

re -ti to 

^ a 

, I tn re 

re c; 

.t; o -rt 

X <^ re ^ c 

tfi re c cxx 



tn 



re 



































[PU014P3O ^^ppj^-jsoj 
































lipaj^ [Boueuij 
































suoqepouiui033V 'H'l^d 
































juauiAoiclui3 
































auisnoH pajaAo;^ JSMIQ 


































































Members of 
Armed Services 


Veterans 


Persons with Children 


Deafness 


General Handicap 


Receipt of 
Public Assistance 


Marital Status 


Blindness 


Ancestry 


at 
M 
< 


X 


National Origin 


Religion/Creed 


Color 


Race 



1 



2 .2 

"(3 t 



6 



o 
Z 



0) 



bO 
c 



O 



o 

tn 



u 
a» 
(X 

(A 

Xi 



U (u 



a 



c 
'(3 
c 

£ 

•o 

c 

c 

o 



C 



to 
c 



M) 

.S 

tn 
? 
O 

-4-* 

fS 

_> 
'C 
Ph 
73 
C 
n 
u 



6 .2 

0) 



4i 



V- (0 

° to 
to| 

V O 

O Ci- 
t, O 

Oh k 
Oh 



fcO 



o 
to 



cJ o 

o to 
c 

'35 



t/) 

.5 

S S 

fi iH 

^ C 



to d 6 
a> o to 

to 



•id o 

(ft 

s 

Ift H-> 

C C 
o »^ 

OJ (ft 

(ft ■— < 
C 

U 

"S 3 
=" 

^ o, 

(J ttj 

« S3 
o, c 

>, 

c to 
to 

2| 
(ft 

8 o 

« ^^^^ 

(ft Q ' 



q; (ft 

t« (l» nj 

T3 . - 

*^ O. 

o,x 

ai 

5 
O 



'2 

o 

>^ 
03 



(T5 



S ° t; 



- Oh g 



0) eft 
O (J 

(ft 



O 

Oh 

(ft 

c 

to 



1 



1-1 
U 



^ 2 

S 2 

2 I 

O i- 

^ S 



ai 

c ^ 

iS 

.2 o 

3 C 

o <1> 

.Si re 

^1 § 
CJ to 

CI 
73 



o 



t3 
o 



o 


3 


> 
O 




"(3 








a. 


o 


cx 


c 


o 




ay 






e 


fcO 


C 
'35 



o 

o 
o 



o m 



(A 

o 



c; 

P-H 

C 

.2 

3 

-a 



U 

3 

-a 

OJ 

1 1 

crt rv 



c 

OJ 



■2 S 
B 2 



O w 

2 

o 'Xi 
.2 

o 



a 
re 

3 O 

^ "H 

re ^ 
3 ^ 

0) to 
C ^ 



to 

H 

o ^ 

j=; .2 

to 3 
(/i 

to "x; 

to (Al 



.3 '> O 



-.2 "5 



3 tJD 



(/) 

(U 

"to 

73 
3 
to 

£ 

3 

_o 

to 
_> 
to 

£ 



73 
3 
to 

3 

_o 

"to 
3 



to 
o 

Q 
< 
U 



73 
3 
to 
cn 

3 



73 
_3 

bJO 
3 
O 
>-i 
XI 

3 



g 

o 

CJ 

6JD 
C 
'35 

01 

o 
O 

Vh 

&, 

73 

3 
to 

W) 
3 

t/5 

01 3 
<J o 

01 

N 
3 

to 
to 

. O 



to 



CJ 

3 

to 
> 
73 

to 

to 



to 



to 
to 
<u 

73 
3 
to 

t/5 
CJ 



to 

<J 
u 

(0 . 

Ol crt 

^ c; 

Ol O) 
N 

boH 
3 w 
"13 (/) 

(0 li 
"I3 Ol 

CO 

3 3 

o 
to 
to 
in 
to 




< 
U 

O 
X 



QJ C/i »-i 



01 



o ^ 



o .2 



c o 

U -c 
> 

5 o 



so 

c 

"re 



o 



o 
> 
o 

u 

o 



H (J 







c 


C 




o 


o 


> 


'!/) 


a 




CO 




re 




CJ 






>-( 




s 


CJ 


"c 


o 






u 


re 


S 


c; 


CO 




X 


o 


re 




C 

_o 


ed 


o 

C/1 


(75 




C 


(/i 




_o 
re 


mi 


GJ 
CO 


£■ 


c; 


1-1 

GJ 


o 




CL 


U 




O 


The 


anno 


-day 






o 


cj 


re 




Sta 




da 


he 


CO 

CJ 
c/5 


ing 




re 


tJO 






re 


O 




C 




CJ 


re 


art 


,os 


£ 






o 

V4-I 


C 


tc 






c 




o 




3 


CO 


!i 


'!75 


o 


'o 


C 




o 


O 


-o 


CL, 


CJ 




CO 






o 
)_ 




C 






re 


o 


g 




o 


>^ 


"re 




U 






CO 


nted 


"o 

Ci- 
te 


man i 


o 


c 


)-. 






're 


D. 


o 




re 


CO 


U 



U re 

CJ 

>^ CJ t^j - 

X O 



^ re 
CJ 

c o ^ 

5-1- 



^ £ 

re <1 

■X 73 

t/) C 

re 

1 s 



o ^ 
re 

.£ ^ 

re 

SCO 
r 1 



c^ to 

2 ;S 

II 

.£ 

I- 

3 o 

o 5 

N ^ 

re -t; 
to c 

o u 

CO 
•r- CJ 

D £ 

r«2 CO 

o >- 

2 

C/) CD 



C CJ 



o 

CJ re 

U 73 



re c 

^t3 
o 73 

£ 03 

CL CJ 
O 7" 

s 

.2 8 

CO 

Q o 



c — • 

tJD 2 



■tb S 



^ .£ 

re 

— CO 

_o 

C 



C/5 LO ''I 

^2 ON C 

re r- 

u re 



o 



.£ 

re c/i 

£ CJ o 
o 5 ^ 

o £ 
re 

t;5 .2 

CJ 

> 

c i_ 
Cu 
o ^ 

re 

C/5 C 
O 



re 

^ 73 

3 C 

O 5 



o 

CJ 



§3 

re 

£ = 
.£ CJ 

CO O 

.2 £ 

^ CJ 

SP-£ 

c 

o 



U5 
> 



o .£ 

c ^ 
o -2 



O § 

CJ ^ 

X c 

H 3 



73 

o 
73 
c 
re 
CX 

X 

o 

73 
re 
X 

CO 

re 
X 

c 

o 
i/i 
'> 
^ 

CO 



032- 
X re 

t- CO 

CJ - o 
X 
E— I 

. ^ O 



to 

CJ 



'Sex 



£ ^ 



o 
c 

I- 

o 

> w 

o 

. X 

CO ^ 

00 -5 
o 

D- 

I2 

CJ > 

o 
Q 

o B 
2 « 



to.=; 

re D- 

•£ 73 o 
C CJ 

£ X 

u C - 

73 ° 

>-i CJ vP 

CJ CO 0^ 



to c 
>- 

re H 
o 

X to 

c/1 C 

2 'to 

A- QJ 



£ 

■ 

^ re 

1 o 

00 "3 



.£ t?; 



^ LT) 

re h 

CJ 

^ _c 
XU 



Q re 

u 

£r 

>^x 

O tjc 



re o 

^ to 

re c 

CO *- 

o to 

^ o 



>^ C 

X 

^§ 

x2 
2 

re Ci. 



CJ 

X 



£ 








c 








73 

CJ 








CJ 




re 







c 


re 


C/1 




re 


ha 


X 




C 


73 





re 







re 
to 


"cj 




CO 


CO 


re 


a 


CJ 


> 




c 


73 




CJ 




crt 





rea 


on 


u 




C 






> 


73 


a 


C 


CJ 


re 


(— 




p 








d 







|S 




'cO 




c 


re 







Cl 


X 


c/l 


CJ 


CJ 










re 


73 




CJ 


CJ 


73 




c 


re 


re 




Ci, 


CO 


X 


C 


CJ 





CO 


£ 


£ 


X 





H 


CJ 



2 ^ 
CX.2 

>^ to 

Xi -j:; 
1 > 
Cl- o 

o £ 
.2 a 



re o 



3 to 

^- o 

X ^ 

£ ^ 

re .5 

tb-^^ 

o o 



CO 



^ <^ 
c 

X, _2 

C to 
re T-j 

to 2 

C CJ 

U-2 

° 5^ 

^ >^ 
<^ 73 
a 
>^ 2 

X re 

^ c 
t2 




TJ 
O 
u 

CJ 

fcJO 
C 
'c7! 

o 



c« o 



cj 



c 
O 



T3 

a 

o 
a 

S 
o 

Ci 

o 

v> 
'> 

5 
i-i 

o 

u 

(U 



3 
o 

•c 

u 
>-> 
a 
X 

o 
c 
< 

1/5 
c 

f5 

£ 
o 

u 
C 

o 

-o 

o 

£ 

£ 

o 



C O 

'I £ 

£ = 

— ^ 

nj C 



c 

"5 c 

•-^ o 

o £ 
^ >^ 

ta o 

^ c 
"d o 
c . 

>;-S 

if) 

C 3 
3 O 
O X 

c 



c 
'fo 

£ 

O 

c 

o 

c 



C 73 



C O 

£^ 



nj a-- 

r/J C 

£ £ 

■r; O* 

^ .b 
'2. 

5 ■£ 

CQ I- 

o 

2 o 
o 



o 

73 
C 

:t3 



O M-i 
(X V, 

Of t?; 

> o 
a 3 

a ^ 

£ J: 

o >n 



O 
55 



K 3 .Si.' t« 



3 

O 

H 



£ 

o 

Ol 

W c 

9 ^ 



o 
c o 

£ S 
o 
(J 



5 ^ 



c 5d c 



'55 ^ 

QJ C 

1^ 

O C 

^ o 

.£ I 

. c 

£ ^ 

eft to 

i; c 
o '55 

-= 
c b 

S Si 



C "= 
to o 

.£ S 

O 

X, n3 





'c 


o 




CJ 


3 


r3 


o 






3 








cr 
o 


o 


CJ 






O 


73 


c 


c 


o 


(13 


3 




o 




C 


'a 




o 











£ 




a 






tG 




o 

u 


i-i 

o 


rz 






Cu 


>-i 




tract 


sup 


sho 


ease 


con 


and 


The 


incr 



CJ 

'!75 

§ 2 

o to 

I, :3 

o o 

p 

3 S 

o S 



.!£ o 
73 &5 

to ri 



73 a 

(L> O 

(n 

to > 



CJ 

p '£ 

(ft D, 
o a, 
5 X 



> I-* 



> 

vi-. ^ 

:2 I 

(D 73 

k-i (T3 
eft 

."ii CJ 



CJ o 3 
• 3 73 in 
3 C to 

cr 3 

o o id 

cft o S 
<D O 0} 

« ^ 2 

c C CJ 
Co'*-' 
O ^- j_i 

a o 

CJ (ft 

2 f= ^ 

s - 

T! ^ ^ 

aJ" O O 
C X 73 

CJ -k-" >-i 

o (3 

73 

C (N 
O (N 



r (T3 



3 

D 

CJ 

'> 

o 



(TJ i- 

to 

C CJ 

■55 > 

3 

o 
X 



3 

cr 
a 

(ft 
eft 

c 

"Eh 



3 

b X S 

iH w X 



CJ (ft 



= CJ 



to 73 



^ C o w 



> 


CJ 

H 



o 



73 ^ s g 
1.&-(3 g 





01 



S3 -2 
X "-I 

■^3 CD 

o o 
D, c 



c 

c 

3 

t/5 
O 



^ 2 

2? c 
■ i: o 

t o 

3 in 
<o O 

C 03 

— -a 

^- I- 

O 5 
U 

o 

o o 

£1. (/> 

< £ 

o E 
X o 
H U 



5 a3 
o o 

CO o 



race 

■ego; 

cj ra 



T3 



O 



cn 

£ "I 5 

^ (J re 

T3 

C a 

o S ^ 



^7 



— o 

.9 U 



I/) 



73 
c 



if) 
rs 
O 



"5 S 



c 

.53 O 



^ U .5 



3 

O 

U 



o 5 



a 

to •£ 
O « 73 



to 
c 





CD 
O 



o 

< 



(X) 



tn c 
in '5 
I— I tn 



° "2 

73 (T) 3 

vl3 o\ <^ 
oOcn p 

•S \ 

c/3 Tj< 



o 

CM 
O 

§^ 

CQ 
CM ,41, 



o 

2 3 





c; 



CD 

01 



QJ O ^ 

c -r '> ^ S >; o 

^ ^O^c E ^ ^ 
o^H 2 U ^ £ 3: 



C '9 o; 



C 
3 
O 




o o 
Q Pi 



m 
o 
pa 



> 



C 
m 

<u C ^ 
< o o 

o 

C O) 



C/3 

D 

u 




CO 

o (J 



U 2 ^3 
o c b 

■ to S 
o 3 t3 
-J W W 



CO c« 

O _ 

H 73 o ta ? 

-0 I .2 -J 
a rz ^ J4 



^ 1 « ^ 

W ^ tL, 



O 



T3 



^ < ^ 

^ c 
E oc9- 

u O 




c 

o 

-a c 
o o 

c 

O 3 

< . 
c a. r- 3 

o 



3 p ^ 



Zoo 



3 

o 



U 

2 



c 
'3 

6 

o 
o 



00 

c 

_ <u 

O O 

CO 

3 0) 
O 

o 



c 0) 

■« 

C3 <* 

.Su 
•o . 

C <u 

> O 
cc > 

•=.5 

3 <U 
O ^ 

c > 
33 

o c, 
£ 

23 o 



4) 

8 

c 

E 
o 
u 



u 

<u 

3 
O 
X> 

a 

o 
c 

o 



3 

O 



l-c 

(U 




•a 

« 



o 



x: 



S ^ 

^ on 



O 



a > 

IS 1) 
o c 



^ E 

(U o 
> o 
■3 O) 

O 



3 

O 

o 
. o 

CO > 



S) eo 



■S -o 

-5 o 

^ & 

S 5 
o 

O I-, 

^° 

o) a> 
o, > 

</3 c 

c c 

o a-! 
CO g. 



c 

<L> 

E 

53 3 

C O 
< 

? -3 

a > 



a c 



c «^ 

s ^ 

t/5 > 



3 s cx 2 

<u X c 



T3 

IS 

I—' 

i2 •= 

o 

w o 

CO 1-1 

(W <U 

"51 O, 
>, 
• c 



■s s 

T-l cn 
S 

S 

CO 

<U 
O 



|i 

■c ^ 



l/i 

■i g ^ 

CO CQ 



!^ O 

II 



O l\ 
rsi I, 

Z 



r-' in 
^ r- 
11 

Z 



r^Z 



F\ LD 
- ; II 

(nZ 



T^z 



r\ CO 
^ 11 

z 







O 












1_ 










o 
d " 



_ ro 

0^ 



CO 



o 

O 00 

^ o 
— ^ 

rsi 



0; 
-Q 

E 
z 



1/ 

— c 



C c 

o i 



tu " — 



Z - ^ O 



(A 

o 



CI, 

S X 

(0 W) 

•p O 

•-^ X 

° g 

01 o 

cn ^ 



•S ^ 



a, 



C 

o 



Q 

<: 
u 



O <8 

to > 



o 

w O 
C 

o o 



I 

S 

o 
U 

o 



C CD 



(1) ^ flj 




cn cj 

o ^ 
W) c 

•43 ^ 

C o 
- U 

c 

c S 

C ^ 

Du^ 
6 < 

o 

u . 

^ ^ c 

<^ I- « 
o c 

1— 1/) "is 
3 Si 

(0 O 

C Ti 

c s S 

Si l_ 05 

to <u 
OJ « IS 

t« ■ P 

(11 O 2 
^ -ri 

u 

a ^ c 

(u 5; 

O QJ > 
5 tj 



o 




2 ■£ 



C 

> c 

(T3 '— ' 

M) . 

w 

s s 

c 3 

nj O 

fo c 

O in 

(X 1/1 

. cn 

2 c 

re .ti 

fcO > 

■•c ^- 

(/) 2 

QJ to 

C u 
3 

O W 

X, V 

*- c 



•35 .«) 

o 'p. 

g .£ 

o 



(D 6JD 
^ C 



3 

a 
-5 

o 



&0 



o 

3 

o 



O 8 
.3 73 



1'^ 



« 5 

C ^ 
.9 3 



-o .2 

S a 

— o 

^ CI. 

c ex 

c « 

ra C 
re 

Cl, ^ 
QJ ? 

re ^ 



to 
.ii*^ re 



T3 
C 
re 



01 o 

> c 

c cr; 

Ol 

O to 

B O 

re 



3 

u 

O 

u 
re 

o 

re-S 



c 
E 

o 
T3 

C 



to 
o 

o .£ 
o o 



T3 - 

-3 ^ £ 

(- re 

>- 

J= cx 

u 

5 3 

c o 



a 



o 

re-^ 



U ex 



35 
CX ^ 



o 



re 
U 
re 



£ 2 



re — 



Ol ^ 

w re 



U U 





U 




.£ 




O 




o 


Ol 

o 






u, 


1/5 




CX 



o» ^ 

^ Ol 

re X, 

^ .£ 
c 

re C 

.£ o 

re CX 

£ re 

o ^ 

^ re 

QJ t- 

*; Ol 

Ol 

T3 O 

« re 

- £ 

§ £ 

cxii 

(/) j-i 

£^ ^ 



O) 

C 

o 



< re 

U ^ 

01 

° £ 

> ^ 

1 ^ 



^ Ol Ol 

O 01 

re D 

^ U 



'JS Ol 



o 

c; 
o 
X 



re -r; 

r- O 



O 

£ 

i 

01 



o 

o 
X 

c 

re 

Ol 

a 
re 

Ol 



re 

73 o 

01 to 
0) 

<^ CX 

to <, 

<i> . 

X V- 

re 

Ol o 

73 0) 

C :£ 
re 

CO O 
to 

Ol XT 

u re 

CX CX 




< 
u 

<: 



CO 

H 



(U t/) 

O 

D 

01 



O « 

« > is 

u .9 

aj a<i 2 



eft -3 

oi C 
tft 



S v2i -.s 
> c ^ 



(fi 

eft 5 

eft X 

eft QJ 

O O £ 

Si ° c 

eft > T3 



Sx 
(ft ta 

eft V- 



T3 .is 



> o 



j2 c <ii 



to eft 

o ^ ^ 



en 

8^ 

3 
CO 

u 

o 

l-l 

fin 

C 
nj 

"5 ^ 



ej a; 



Q 13 



c 

nJ 

T3 

o 

> 

QJ 

eft 
nJ 

Q 
< 
U 



o u 

^ O 

U X 
S ^ o 

« c 

eft 

to 3 
^^-^ 

£ ^ 



eft 



.£ ^ -5 

^ i ^ 



eft (0 
eft (/5 



^ O 



O 

eft Ti 

eft (U 

P > 



O O 



03 

-d 

c 
5 

m 
U 



m 
o 

c 

11 



<D eft 
'T? eft 



O C 



o ^ o 



c 

c 
o 

u 



(0 



1 



2i 

u 
0) 



to 
to 

8 

U 

9 



bO 
(4 

a> 

1 

CO 

at 
X 

'c 

29! 



^ o 

P > C 

o . c 

P 9 

^ ^ o 

o S £ 



to 



o 

(J 
C/3 



o 

«S C 

<J 

(U eft 

O ^ -ti 

a» « i_ 



•5 2 



"(S .2 

C cn u 

'2 5b oi 

.S a» X 

w « o 

2^ ^ 



a, 2i 

I- O 

g > 
> *^ 

^ m 

O O 
>^ > 

S a; 
^ g 



o «J 

■■s ^ « 

to 73 t>jo 

t5 



to 



3 

tj O 

t« 2 

C OI 

to C 

i2 T3 

to a» 
4-* 

u to 



OI 



(A 



tn O 
in 

to trt 

ex 



g 2 

'-' u 
" ^ u. . 



•S -n X 
-C 



o 



60 > 

c ^ 

"55 cn 
3 



•— ( (Ti to (U 



to OI T3 .12 
"o [o .t: "C .> 



§-■2 ° 



■p > 



Com 

O O 
CI cu 



r- »- 

o 8 
& ° 

^< 
o U ^ 

O V u 

< J2 ^ 

CD ^ O 

> J:^ ^ 
O O 

to B 

c o 

2^ 



o o 

^ V 

o 5i 

^ c 

c o 

e 

O T! 

U CD 



CD 

o 
c 



o 
T3 



o i: 

X 

1 ^ 



o c 



O O C 
O nj C 



o C 



I- 



c ^ 

o 

CD <K 

1-1 u 

CD ""^ 



QJ 



c>l C V 

^ 8 

ki 9 

I— I o o 



o J2 
c 

o ^ 

O o 

Z t: 
•S cx 

CD 



o 

CD 



CD o 
CD 03 



in 

5 



1° 



p .e- 

to 3 

•5 £ 



o 



CD .ii 

CD (D 

1— 1 CD 

^ < a 

H S t3 



O o 



c 
c 

o 

CD 

>-. 

o 



.!= o 

CD (U 

^ s 

;:3 CD 
C 



VJ-C 

x" 

0) 
CD 
Ol 



CD 



CD 



c > 

o 



pa 

o 
£ 



(T3 



n 
g 



CD O 
CD 

w -a 

.£ "d 



CD 

a 

o 

X 

CD 

o 

-5 ^ 

c — 

— ' 05 
C 

.9 

^-^^ 
O CI T3 
> p nj 

O 

CD 

O ^ 



CD 



o > U 



(= o 
cr >- 

O CQ 

CD 

3 C 

CO 03 



^ O 

CI ^ 

C 3 

= C 

- 2 

03 V 
CD 

CD O 

C ^ 

03 13 

E Q 



CD C 
CD 'il 

if 

x o 



° 2 

r 

to o 

CD ^ 

< < 

-c -a 

O) -<-' 

> CD 

a 5 

O CI 

c 

<LI 



d 

o 
a; 

•=1 CI 

5 a; 
c 

£ 

^ :£ 

^ CI -t-f, 

O 

CD > — 

O- m > 
OX, 
A 



CD 

O 



CD ^ 
O ^ 

CI 

feO 3 



H 03 CD 



o vS o 
^ « - 



u 

to 



o 

Ol 



ex 

O 

o 



c 2 

. 3 

C CI 

^ B 

c ° 
C 

^ T3 

o _o 



e 

O 
C 

o 



C 

o 

ll 
o 
CI, 

TS 
O 

a, 

D, 

to 
u 



T3 

c 

o 

c 

o 



o *- 

-a g 

o ^ 

■i: CO 

^ ^ 



^ 



c o to 

H c 

o 
o 



■■5 £ 



C £ 

O 



^ O 



T3 
T3 



c . o 

O t« 

g S 2 

k- trt 



<n c 

o .t: 

o to 

.S X 

^ 2 

r ^- 



O T3 



8 



o 

Ol 

a 



c 

3 

O 



O O) 



U - « 

Ol 

s 

-o 

3 ^ 

c 2 

QJ to 



S 

c/i CL 

'P. <^ 

- G 

c ^ 

I 

1 3: 

O 'ZZ 

to (/) 

_ o 

«3 > 

— c 

Ui I— c 

a, <^ 



> m 

> O) 
O T3 
C 

^ a; 

^ ■£ 

'5- i2 
o I, 

0) o 

<*, CL 
O 3 
^ to 

c 

(0 (TJ 

tX o" 
o »- 

3 

"O (D 

to 

CJ .3 
03 

"o ■£ 
^ c 



O 



c 

c ^ o 



(U C 

k> 03 

3 "5 

O bO 

o c 

•5 — 

*^ <o 



Ui to 



OS 



<K O 
to QJ t3 



01 



(LI > 

U C 

£ > 

> to 



Ol 



J3 

<^ X 

00 

c .S 

<^ ^ 

!^ 

O) 03 

in 

o 00 

0^ 

.9 •£ 

to 

"5 C 

y c 
^ o 

D,.£ 



t/5 

C 03 _ 

O ^ -P 

I 

c ^ 
ex, -r; 

3 -c 

to ^ gj 

^ o S 

c; S i2 

3 C 

(fl O) to 

to b CX 

>^ C u 

Ou "J "3 

t§ £ 

- '55 

to a> 

1 ^ ^ 

? QJ O 

to ■> Oh 

O) to 

trt P o; 
03 

O) O ?3 



CO >- 
O o 



i 



MASSACHUSETTS 
COMMISSION 
AGAINST 
DISCRIMINATION 



Sfafe Ubrary of Massachusetts 

' House, Bosfon 



„R Annual Reports 

'^]rl Fiscal Years 1987, 1988 & 1989 

1987-89 
C.2 



MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIRMAN 1 

WHAT IS MCAD? 2 

ORGANIZATION OF MCAD 4 

Commissioners' Office 4 

Division of Investigations 4 

Public Sector Division 6 

Control Division 8 

Legal Division 9 

COMMISSIONERS OF MCAD 10 

MCADOFHCES 12 

MCAD Staff 13 

State Advisory Board 13 

THE COMPLAINT PROCESS 14 



Publication No. 16, 640-18-300-4-91-C .R. 
Approved by Ric Murphy, State Purchasing Agent 



MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIRMAN 



MCAD is for everyone: 

• The mother denied housing because she has children. 

• The disabled worker seeking work using his abilities, not his disabilities. 

• The multiracial audiences and participants in professional sports. 

• New immigrants to Massachusetts who face unthinking, illegal hostility. 

• The woman who wants to fulfill her lifetime ambition to become a police officer. 

• A person with AIDS wishing to continue his employment. 

Discrimination against people because of immutable factors is illegal. It is also 
dysfunctional. A person discriminating against another because of race or creed or sex or 
disability is not only acting illegally, but also irrationally. Racism and other forms of 
prejudice are mental illnesses, which cause people to be unable to make rational judgments. 
They are the mental ilbiess of misattribution, the close cousin to their physical counterpart, 
color blindness. At MCAD, we may not be able to cure the illness, but we can prevent the 
people afflicted from interfering with the rights of others. And we can help educate people. 

MCAD has set goals for itself and is reporting on its progress toward these goals in this 
report. The goals include: 

• Reaching as many people as possible to educate them on the rights we aU share 
and hold sacred. 

• Processing cases rapidly and fairly. 

• Expanding the protection of the law to people with disabilities. 

• Using the Commonwealth's resources more efficientiy and effectively. 

At MCAD over the last three years, we have made progress on our agenda to increase the 
public's confidence in our capability. One measure of this success is the 29% increase in 
cases during the reporting period. We are proud of the fact that with a decrease in state 
funding and a diminution in staff we were able to increase the number of case closings 
from 1,955 in FY'87 to 2,731 in FY'89, a Commission all-time high. In addition, we are 
especially proud of the increased efforts of our Public Sector Division, which oversees 
affirmative action efforts in Massachusetts municipalities. 

This Annual Report is testimony to the fact that good management and hard work lead to 
the accomplishment of well -developed goals. In the final analysis, the staff of MCAD must 
be congratulated for making our success possible. 



Alex Rodriguez 
Chairman 



2 



WHAT IS MCAD? 



The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination was established in 1946 as the civil 
rights law enforcement agency for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Operating under a 
broad statutory mandate, the Commission is empowered to investigate and decide cases of 
discrimination in the areas of employment, housing, public accommodations, credit, 
services, and education. The Commission can receive complaints brought by individuals 
and organizations, and can initiate its own complaints. It has strong investigatory powers 
and clear authority to require remedies where discrimination has been found to exist. 

As a law enforcement agency, the MCAD's goal is full compliance with civil rights laws 
and regulations. In addition to handling complaints, the Commission promulgates rules and 
regulations, monitors and assists businesses and governments in their civil rights 
compliance efforts, provides educational programs for law enforcement officials who have 
civil rights enforcement responsibilities, and actively promotes broad pubUc understanding 
of human rights issues. 

MCAD addresses discrimination on the basis of 

•race 

• color 

• religious creed 

• national origin 

• ancestry 

• sex 
•age 

• marital status 

• persons with children 

• handicap status 

• source of income (receipt of public assistance) 

• military/veteran status 



MCAD has special responsibility for eliminating illegal discrimination in five major areas: 
Employment 

The Fair Practices Law protects the rights of Massachusetts workers to obtain and 
maintain employment free of discrimination. It is illegal for an employer to 
discriminate in advertising, hiring, discharge, or in any terms or conditions of 
employment. 

Public and Private Housing 

The Fair Housing Law prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, or leasing of 
property, housing, or apartments, or in related services such as advertising, 
showing of property, or obtaining a mortgage. 



3 



Public Accommodations 

It is illegal to deny services or access to any place, whether licensed or unlicensed, 
which solicits or accepts the patronage of the general public (such as hotels, 
restaurants, stores, transportation, hospitals, etc.). 

Credit and Service 

Denial of credit based on race, color, religious creed, sex, marital status, children, 
national origin, ancestry, age, handicap, or status as a recipient of public assistance 
is illegal. Discrimination is also prohibited in advertising, loan approvals, and 
extending credit. 

Educational Institutions 

Massachusetts mandates equal educational opportunities in admission to any 
educational institution which accepts students or applications from the general 
public. 



In addition to enforcing anti-discrimination law, the Governor's Executive Order 227 
charges MCAD with additional responsibilities, including advising the Governor's Cabinet 
Officers on policy and practices relating to the Commonwealth's affirmative action 
mandates. TTiis includes reviewing applications for public funds to ensure equality of 
opportunity for racial and ethnic minorities, women, and people with disabilities. The 
Commission is also responsible for monitoring the State's contract compliance program, 
which requires recipients of discretionary state funding to implement and enforce programs 
that guarantee equality of opportunity for minorities and women. 



MCAD carries out its anti-discrimination and affirmative action mandates by: 

• receiving and processing complaints of discrimination brought by individuals and 
organizations; 

• educating the public through training programs, pubUc speaking engagements, 
media campaigns, and participation in groups supporting human rights; 

• reviewing the activities of Massachusetts municipalities in order to assess and 
encourage compliance with fair practices, and to ensure that no public funds are 
spent in a discriminatory manner or in support of discriminatory practices; 

• initiating research activities and legal suits that may advance the rights of 
Massachusetts citizens. 



4 



ORGANIZATION OF MCAD 



The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination is organized into five sections: the 
Commissioners' Office, the Division of Investigations , the Public Sector Division, the 
Control Division, and the Legal Division. Department heads are located at the main offices 
in Boston. Satellite offices are located in New Bedford, Springfield, and Worcester. 



Commissioners' Office 

The Commissioners' Office is operated as a distinct section of the Commission. 
Commissioners are responsible for setting policy and deciding those cases that are not 
settled administratively. There are three Commissioners, one of whom chairs the 
Commission. The three Commissioners, sitting as a Commission, oversee the general 
operations of the entire Commission. Each of the commissioners is given primary 
responsibility for a particular region of the state. One is appointed from the western part of 
the state and serves in the MCAD's Springfield office; another carries special responsibility 
for Southeastern Massachusetts and assists the third Commissioner in overseeing the rest 
of the state. 

The Executive Assistant to the Commissioners develops the Commissioners' schedules to 
ensure that they meet their many obligations, which include Full Hearings, Appeal 
Hearings, case management. Commission Meetings, managers' meetings, training 
activities, speaking engagements, and other civic activities. The Executive Assistant to the 
Commissioners also acts as the press officer and the affirmative action officer for the 
agency. 

Division of Investigations 

The Division of Investigations receives and investigates all complaints concerning 
discrimination in education and private and public employment. In its investigations, the 
Division utilizes Fact-Finding Conferences, interrogatories, personal interviews, and on- 
site visits to search out information concerning allegations of discrimination. During the 
investigation stage, the Division may provide an invaluable service to both the complainant 
and the respondent by airing their concems and helping to defuse the matter. Investigators 
strive to both improve conditions and practices in the work place and to assist parties in 
arriving at a mutually satisfactory resolution. 

Despite budgetary constraints, MCAD boasts a high rate of success in favorably resolving 
its complaints. At 25 percent, MCAD's rate of Probable Cause findings is approximately 
ten percent higher than national rates of Probable Cause findings. When viewed in tandem 
with settlements, MCAD's rate of case closure in favor of the complainant is between 40 
and 50 percent. This ratio is significantiy higher than the national averages on case closures 
of this kind. 



5 



Number of Complaints Filed with MCAD 
for FY 1987, 1988 & 1989 
by Type of Complaint 




+ 




+ 




[iH Public Accommodations, Credit, 
Education 

□ Housing 

^ Employment 



FY87(N=2797) FY88(N=3149) FY89(N=3177) 



Number of Complaints Filed with MCAD 
for FY 1987, 1988 & 1989 
by Basis of Complaint 




race/color sex age handicap ancestry/ public children marital reUgion, 

national assistance status veteran, 

origin criminal 

record 



6 



AIDS Task Force 

In 1986, the Commission created the AIDS Task Force to address increasing discrimination 
against f)eople with AIDS and people perceived to be at risk for having AIDS. The Task 
Force set out to handle and expedite all HTV and AIDS -related discrimination complaints 
and to implement policy relative to the AIDS epidemic and civil rights. One of the Task 
Force's first accompUshments was a comprehensive policy statement classifying AIDS and 
perception of risk for AIDS as disabiUties under the Commonwealth's Handicap Law. The 
policy was one of the first of its kind in the nation, and has been subsequently implemented 
in many other localities. 

The AIDS Task Force was awarded one of the Commonwealth's Pride in Performance 
Awards in 1988. In addition, the Task Force was selected as one of ten Manuel Carballo 
Award recipients in the state. The Carballo Award, which is given annually, is one of the 
highest honors conferred by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Task Force 
donated its $1,000 award to AIDS Action Committee, a non-profit AIDS service 
organization. 



Intern Program 

Between Fiscal Years 1987 and 1989, the Division of Investigation's case load grew by 
22%. Since MCAD's state funding has not increased to match these added demands on the 
agency, the Division of Investigations has developed a volunteer intern program to help 
meet its staffing needs. 

Applications to become student interns are received from colleges around the country. 
Interns are given a week-long training session at MCAD and are then assigned cases which 
they process and write up under close staff supervision. The program not only helps 
MCAD manage its case load, it also develops a pool of people knowledgeable about civil 
rights issues. The intern program has received warm responses from its many participants. 



Public Sector Division 

The Public Sector Division of MCAD is comprised of three units: Housing Investigations, 
Systemic Fair Housing Testing and Enforcement, and Civil Rights Review. 

Housing Investigations 

The Housing Investigations staff investigates all housing, credit, and public 
accommodations complaints using many of the same techniques as the Division of 
Investigations. In the past several years, MCAD has processed an increasing number of 
housing cases contracted with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 
(HUD). In 1989, MCAD's investigative staff closed 10% of all HUD cases nationally. 
This percentage, which is remarkably high given the comparatively small size of MCAD, is 
due to the dedication and hard work of MCAD's investigative and legal staff 



7 



Systemic Fair Housing Testing and Enforcement Program 

Over the past several years, MCAD significantiy expanded the operations of its Systemic 
Fair Housing Testing and Enforcement Program. The Systemic Program aims to combat 
large-scale, institutionalized housing discrimination in Massachusetts. The Program 
accomplishes this objective through two major program initiatives: 1) a Testing Program, in 
which housing providers in particular geographic areas are investigated for compliance with 
the fair housing laws by the use of matched sets of individuals who pose as homeseekers; 
and 2) an Enforcement Program, in which housing discrimination complaints are brought 
against those agencies found to discriminate. 

Major accomplishments of the past several years include: 

• Testing Program conducted in Framingham that investigated discrimination against 
blacks, Hispanics, and rental subsidy recipients. 

• Complaints initiated against six real estate agencies and one property management 
company in Framingham on the basis of the Testing Program's results. 

• Framingham complaints investigated, resulting in Probable Cause findings and the 
issuance of a formal report entitied Housing Discrimination in the Rental Market: A 
Report on the Barriers Faced by Women with Rental Subsidies, Blacks, and 
Hispanics. 

• Testing Program conducted in Waltham and Medford that investigated 
discrimination against blacks, rental subsidy recipients, and families with children, 

• Complaints initiated against seven Waltham real estate agencies and four Medford 
agencies. 

MCAD's program has been primarily funded through competitive grants received from the 
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 



Civil Rights Review Unit 

The Civil Rights Review Unit is the conduit through which grant recipients achieve 
compliance with prevailing requirements. The Unit has two primary functions: the first is 
monitoring the state's contract compUance program; the second is overseeing the 
compliance of municipalities and other units of government with the requirements of the 
state's Executive Order #227 and state affirmative action regulations, which require 
recipients of discretionary state funding to implement and enforce programs that guarantee 
equality of opportunity for minorities and women. 

The Unit attempts to assist grant applicants in resolving affirmative action issues before 
they are Utigated by working directly with municipalities in developing and implementing 
fair housing, equal employment, contract compliance, and minority/women business 
enterprise programs. An affirmative effort to develop and implement these programs is 
necessary in order to qualify for federal and state grants. 



8 



The Civil Rights Review Unit's municipal employment and contract compliance efforts 
have shown excellent results. A Public Sector Division report submitted in 1988 revealed 
that between 1984 and 1988 the number of women employed by municipalities in the 
Commonwealth increased by 9. 1 percent; the number of minorities employed increased by 
7.8 percent. In addition, the number of communities reporting contract compliance data 
increased from 41 in 1984 to 1 10 in 1988. During this period, there was a 65 percent 
increase in the number of hours worked by women, and a 72 percent increase in the 
number of hours worked by minorities, on municipal contract projects. 



Roger C. MacLeod, Director of MCAD's Public Sector Division for 1 1 years, left the 
Commission in 1986. During his tenure, Mr. MacLeod developed a systemic approach to 
fair housing testing and was instrumental in implementing many of the state's affirmative 
action programs. His legacy was commemorated in 1985, when he was awarded the 
Robert K. Byron Award for his outstanding contributions to public service. 



Control Division 

Established in 1977 and expanded in 1987, the Control Division incorporates the financial 
and administrative functions of MCAD. As the planning and monitoring arm of the 
Commission, the Control Division provides information and recommendations on 
management of the agency's case load using a computerized management information 
system which allows tracking of individual cases and case flow. The Control Division 
develops and manages the Commission's budget, which includes three yearly contracts 
firom MCAD's federal counterparts, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 
(EEOC) and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In 
addition, the Division oversees the administrative support functions of the Commission. 

The Control Division docketed 9,123 complaints during the reporting period. In addition, 
the Division was responsible for monitoring over 3,300 Title VII complaints contracted 
through the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). 

During the reporting period, the Control Division developed an intake system that allows 
complaints to be input directly on computers as they are received. The new system, 
developed under the direction of Terrence P. Morris, Deputy Director of Administration for 
MCAD, and Patricia McLaughlin of the Office of Management Information Systems, uses a 
program specifically design^ for MCAD that automatically forwards complaints and other 
correspondence to parties. Word processing equipment has also been introduced 
throughout the agency for investigators and attomeys to use in their daily work. The 
Commission's transition to computerized systems was made in record time thanks to the 
cooperation and commitment of MCAD staif. 

In 1987, Fakir Khalifa, MCAD's Fiscal Officer, was awarded one of the Commonwealth's 
Pride in Performance awards for his accomplishments in the Control Division. 



9 



Legal Division 



The Legal Division serves as in-house counsel to the Commission, Duties of the legal staff 
are varied, and include advising investigators on complex investigations, reviewing 
investigative recommendations, attempting conciliation following a Probable Cause 
finding, and prosecuting cases in public hearing when conciliation fails. Commission 
attorneys also represent the Commission in court. 

Some important legal decisions during Fiscal Years 1987, 1988, and 1989 include: 

• The Supreme Judicial Court, in Gnerre v. MCAD, upheld the prior determination of 
the MCAD that recognized sexual harassment of a tenant by a landlord as sex 
discrimination. 

• In New York Motor Service, Inc. v. MCAD, the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed 
the Commission's finding that the employer had failed to make reasonable 
accommodation to an employee's reUgion by refusing his request for time off to 
observe holy days. 

• The Appeals Court, in Franklin Publishing Co. v. MCAD, upheld a Commission 
award of emotional distress, back pay and interest in a pregnancy-related sex 
discrimination case. 

• In College Town, Inc. v. MCAD, the Supreme Judicial Court upheld the 
Commission's decision that an employer is strictly liable for sexual harassment by a 
supervisor. 

• The Supreme Judicial Court upheld the Commission's definition of a place of 
public accommodation in Concord Rod and Gun Club v. MCAD, and required it to 
admit females into membership. 

• In Hillary's v. MCAD, the Appeals Court overturned a Superior Court decision and 
affirmed a Commission determination that an employer had failed to meet its burden 
of showing mitigation of damages. 



10 



COMMISSIONERS OF MCAD 



The MCAD is led by three commissioners who are appointed by the Governor for 
overlapping three-year terms. Each Commissioner is responsible for a particular geographic 
portion of the state. 



Commissioner Alex Rodriguez, Chairman 

Alex Rodriguez, a graduate of Goddard College and a former Loeb Fellow at Harvard 
University, served as a member of the Commission from 1977 to 1981. In 1984, he was 
appointed to a three- year term as Chairman of the Commission by Govemor Michael S. 
Dukakis, and was subsequently reappointed to a second three-year term in 1987. He was 
previously Monitor for Special Education in Boston for the Massachusetts Superior Court, 
and Vice President of the United Community Planning Corporation. 

Commissioner Rodriguez is President of the United Lower Roxbury/South End 
Community Development Corporation, and has served for many years as Board Member of 
the Massachusetts and National Associations for Mental Health. He is active in community 
issues in the areas of bilingual education, community development, and multi-cultural and 
multi-group citizen involvement on the local, state, and national levels. 

As Chairman of the Commission, Commissioner Rodriguez is responsible for the overall 
management of the agency. 



Commissioner Frederick Hurst 

Frederick Hurst, the Western Massachusetts appointee to the Commission, was first 
appointed by Govemor Dukakis in 1984, and was reappointed in 1986 and 1989. 
Commissioner Hurst holds a Bachelor's degree from Howard University, studied for a 
doctorate at the University of Massachusetts, and received his law degree from De Paul 
University. He has clerked in the Office of the Illinois Attorney General and, prior to his 
appointment to MCAD, he was an attomey with the Massachusetts Defenders Committee in 
Springfield. 

Commissioner Hurst is involved extensively in community activities in Western 
Massachusetts, and has served on the Board of the Urban League, as an Incorporator of the 
Springfield Harambee Cultural Festival, and as pubUsher of a community newsletter. 

Commissioner Hurst manages the MCAD's Springfield and Worcester offices, and has 
special responsibility for the Western Massachusetts activities of the Commission. 



11 



Commissioner Kathleen Allen 

Kathleen Allen was appointed to the Commission by Governor Dukakis in 1985, and was 
reappointed in 1988. She is a graduate of Lake Erie College, and holds a master's degree 
and a law degree from Boston University. Prior to her appointment to the Commission, she 
served as private counsel for an NAACP- sponsored lawsuit on voting issues, was senior 
attomey with the Georgia Legal Services Program, and was a staff attomey with Greater 
Boston Legal Services. In addition, she was one of the founders of the first women's law 
collective in the United States, and she practiced law for five years with a general practice 
firm in Cambridge, Massachusetts. 

Commissioner Allen has a broad background in teaching law. She was Joshua A. 
Guberman Fellow and Lecturer in Legal Studies at Brandeis University, and she has taught 
courses on sex-based discrimination at Boston College Law School, Boston University 
Metropolitan College, and the University of Massachusetts. In addition, she has been a 
clinical instructor of law at Harvard University Law School. 

Commissioner Allen is based in the Boston office, and carries special responsibility for 
Southeastem Massachusetts. 



12 



MCAD OFFICES 



The main office of the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination is located in 
Boston. The Commissioners meet regularly in this office, and the staff of the Commission 
is managed from this location. MCAD also maintains offices in Worcester, Springfield, and 
New Bedford. All of the Commission's offices are open to receive telephone inquiries and 
accept complaints on weekdays from 8:45 AM to 5:00 PM. Addresses and telephone 
numbers of MCAD offices are as follows: 



Boston Office 

617/727-3990 



Sixth Floor, One Ashburton Place 
(McCormick State Office Building) 
Boston, MA 02108 



Worcester Office 

508/752-2272 



129 Lincoln Street 
Worcester, MA 01605 



Springfield Office 

413/739-3330 or 
413/739-2145 



145 State Street 
Springfield, MA 01103 



New Bedford Office 

508/997-3191 



53 North 6th Street, Room 203 
New Bedford, MA 02740 



MCAD has a strong network of advisors in regional councils across the state. The 
Statewide Advisory Board, appointed by the Governor, coordinates the activities of the 
regional Advisory Councils, reviews the implementation of the Commission's programs 
and policies, and advises both the Commission and the Governor on matters of policy 
affecting the Commission. Board and Council members serve without compensation. 

The regional Advisory Councils are based in Boston, Cape Cod, Lawrence, New Bedford, 
Pittsfield, and Worcester. These Councils include representatives of major lending and 
credit institutions; major private employers; local post-secondary educational institutions; 
labor organizations; owners and brokers of residential property; local personnel or civil 
service administrators; women; racial, ethnic, and linguistic groups; elderly persons; 
persons with disabilities; and recipients of public assistance. 



13 



MP AD Staff 






FY'87 '88 '8Q 






T~)piiisp T iissipr 


\1vrnn AlpxanHpr 


FliTiiheth Addivinola 


Roffer MacLeod 


John Blount 




RohpTt \4fllinnpv 


Tanpt RovIp 


TCathlppn Allpn 


Kathprinp Martin 


Arthur Rripht 

ImA IXltXX X^XXgllt 




Poiil lVj4innr 


Dr Rradford R Rrou/n 


Nanpv AlvaraHn 


Mplvina MontPirn 


Tiidith Rrown 


Tprp^a Anp^pr^i 


TpTTpnrp Morris 


Fialia f^iilvo 

X^UXXCX V_'<X1 V \J 


Nanrv Ramp^ 

1 ^ cuiw y uoj. iiwi3 


Maiirp>pn MiildpiTv 

XtXCXUX V^ll XT XLXXVXwXX y 


Peter K Chan 


Nathanipl Rpiman 


Tpan Mii<iikpr 

•1 wCUl i,*XiXoXA.WX 


Pranris f^hano" 

X X (XXlwXo X^klCLll^ 


T /^npv RrtnH 

J— A^llvy U^llU 




T ^onafH P f^oonpT 


Beth 


Madeline Nash 

X T XCAVXwXXX X ^CAOll 


Josenh H C*orcoran 


Cvnthia Cahill 


RospTTiJirv Npvins 

IN. Wo lieu y i^V'Vllio 






Wah Don Na 


Tndirh N Dildav 


Pptpr (""arHia 


f^arolvn PapVarH 
v-'U-iL/iyii X ctc-ivciiu. 




Jay v^cuiicy 


V ilgiiiia X di KJ> 


T"\r T mc iHiiAritAC 
1^1. l^Uid x^UClllCo 


Alan (~'ji<;<splla 


T nrpnTO Parra 

^^\J± V 1 1 £A_f X CLX X d 


Rpttv A Gittps 


Tpannpttp Christv 


N^arpot PpTTV 

iTicugv^L X vxx y 


Dr Phvllis S Glick 

X^X • X il y XXXi3 > XJAXVIV 


Tpan r^lanton 




Pollv F Taplrcon 
ryjiiy ±, JctCKoCll 


Qvlvia f~"r»hf"n 


r^harlpQ PoTtpr 


^Villiam TCrasnoxx/ 




\/tr*tf\r Pr^CQri!! 
V iClUl X iJoaCm 


\^Qfr*f*llQ T 5inr*r\TTv* 
iVlcUCCila LMiiK^KjlliC 




Timlin P Qmr\c 


ilCl LK^l I L^lllCililctii 


Till IP (""nttpr 


lV4i(Tdalia Rivpra 


Tor {TP T una 


TiiHith r^iimmin (TQ 


AIpy RfvlrioiiPT 

/^iWA IXWAXI i^Llv/Z< 


Ronald A^pT i*an 


Rarhara l~)irlcpv 


r^nnpptta Rossptri 


TTiomas A N4pla 


Qharvn l~)rpvpr 


T QllTlf* PllHlTl 


T^T*nm^^* \i4itr*hf*ll 
JiilililxC 1^. iviildlwii 


Mipiipl Ppmandp7 


Miphapl Rnhin 

XTXXVi'llClwX XXI4I_/X11 


Hattip Morpland 


Til np PpTTpll 


Plainp RnplfQ 


RipharH \4^iindo 


Marlen Garcia 


Lorraine Solowav 


John J Nvhan 

J v/i 111 ^» x^yi lui 1 


Stenhanie Ciihhs 


A hi pa i 1 S oto- Col on 


"Thomas O'Rripn 

xiiv/xxxcxo vy X_#XXWll 


AlfVpil firav 


Fthpl Stontp 


\4arv Olivpr 


T ^^lip CiTppr 


Tamps button 


Randolnh Ci Pptprs 


Euppnia Ciuastafprri 


Tanipp Svmons 


Carol vn A Reed 


Edward Houchin 


riene Titus 


William C Ross 

T T XAXA4XAAA XXV/lJO 


Edda Howard 


Ronald Travlor 

xxv/iicxxu. X X ct y xv/x 


Phvllis N Segal 

X ii y XXX 1 ^ • w wgcxx 


Frederick Hurst 

X X wX XWxV X X UX L 


Pvplvn Tvlpr 

' T V'X y it X y xwx 


Horace Seldon 


I^eslie Hvdp 


Tamps Vanrp 


Tohn A Spnna 

•/Willi i&* kjV/iiiia 


Marlania Jones 


Francisco Villalobos 


James A. Sullivan 


Judith Kaplan 


Barbara Walsh 


Francis A. Taggert 


MeUssa Katz 


Lois Wilcox 


May Ling Tong 


Fakir Khalifa 


Sharyn Wong 


Delda White 


Jerrold Levinsky 


CeUa WorreU 


Bruce A. Young 


Vivian Lindo 


Judith Wright 


Edie Lockhart 


Franklin Young 





14 



THE COMPLAINT PROCESS 

The complaint process is the primary method by which MCAD fulfills its anti-discrimination 
mandate. An individual who feels she or he has been discriminated against may bring a 
complaint to MCAD. MCAD will investigate the complaint and seek to resolve it. 

Four principles are integral to the MCAD complaint process: 

1. The MCAD is an impartial, objective investigating agency. MCAD is not "for" or 
"against" anyone or any side. Investigators are neutral and professional, and their 
actions are based on facts and evidence. 

2. Complaints must be timely, and must generally be filed within six months of the 
alleged discriminatory act. Massachusetts law requires that all investigations 
proceed promptly. To keep cases moving, the law imposes certain deadlines that 
must be observed. 

3. The Commission encourages and actively works to achieve settiements. It is in 
the interest of both parties to achieve a voluntary resolution to the complaint 
whenever possible. 

4. Massachusetts Law (MGL Chapter 15 IB, Section 4(4)), specifically prohibits 
retaliation against any person who has filed a complaint, participated in an 
investigation, or otherwise opposed allegedly discriminatory practices. The MCAD 
strongly enforces this law. Any harassment or action adverse to the complainant or 
witnesses is investigated and aggressively prosecuted. 

How the Complaint Process Works 

1) Filing the complaint. An individual wishing to file a complaint contacts the nearest 
MCAD office. The complainant meets with an investigator and gives a summary of the 
specific acts of alleged unlawful discrimination, including: 

• the dates on which the alleged discriminatory acts occurred; 

• a list of the names, titles, business addresses, and telephone numbers of persons 
charged with committing unlawful discrimination; 

• names of witnesses, if any; 

• any supporting documentation, such as notices, leases, and comparative data; 

• details of any financial losses suffered as a result of the alleged discrimination. 

If the complaint falls within the Commission's jurisdiction, the investigator drafts a formal 
complaint based on the information provided by the complainant. The complaint is mailed 
to the individual or organization charged with committing unlawful discrimination, who is 
asked to respond to the allegations. 

2) The investigation process. Based on the respondent's answers to the complaint, the 
investigator advises whether there is reasonable basis for settlement. A Settlement 
Conference may be convened with both the complainant and the respondent. Many cases 
are closed in this manner. 



15 



If the case is not settled at this stage, the investigator commences further investigation 
through various means, including interrogatories and document requests. The investigator 
may convene a Fact-Finding Conference at which the complainant and respondent, as well 
as appropriate witnesses, are present. 

3) Causal determination. Based on the information obtained during the investigation 
process, the Investigating Commissioner makes a finding of either Probable Cause or Lack 
of Probable Cause. A finding of Probable Cause is made when the Investigating 
Commissioner concludes that there is sufficient evidence upon which a fact-finder could 
form a reasonable belief that the respondent committed unlawful discrimination. Such a 
finding reserves disputes involving genuine issues of material fact for determination at a 
public hearing. The complainant has the right to appeal a determination of Lack of Probable 
Cause by filing a request within ten (10) days of the initial determination. 

A finding of Probable Cause in housing cases entitles the complainant and the respondent 
to elect an administrative public hearing or a judicial determination of the case in state court. 
If neither party elects to go to state court, the complainant may either retain private counsel 
or be represented by one of the Commission's staff attomeys in further attempts at 
conciliation. In all other cases, a finding of Probable Cause sends the case to the 
Commission's legal division, where conciliation is attempted again. 

4) Public Hearing . If further attempts at conciliation fail, the Commission convenes a 
Public Hearing, which is an adjudicatory hearing at which one of the three Commissioners 
presides. Both the complainant and respondent, or their representatives, present their cases 
at the public hearing. The presiding Commissioner enters an order based on the facts 
presented at the hearing. Both the complainant and the respondent have the right to appeal 
the decision to the full Commission and then to Superior Court on the basis of the record 
established at the Commission proceedings. 



Settling a Case 

The MCAD emphasizes the importance of settiement at every stage in the complaint 
process. Since it is in the interest of both parties to achieve a mutually agreeable resolution 
in a timely fashion, the Commission seeks to bring the complainant and respondent 
together as soon as possible to discuss settlement options. A case can be formally closed if 
a settlement agreement is made prior to a Commission determination. A settlement is not an 
admission of guilt or liability by either party. 

A settiement is reached if both the respondent and the complainant make an agreement that 
is approved by the Commission. Settiement may occur at any point in the complaint 
process, and may be suggested by either or tx)th parties, or by a representative of MCAD. 
A representative of MCAD reviews all settiements for fairness. 



Prepared by Bradley R. Carlson 



MASSACHUSETTS 
COMMISSION 
AGAINST 
DISCRIMINATION 



iibrary of Ma,,. L 



Annual Report 

MR 

261-7 Fiscal Year 1990 

M41fr 
1990 

C.1 



mo 

c.i 



• 



MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIRMAN 1 

WHAT IS MCAD? 2 

NEW LEGISLATION AFFECTING MCAD 4 

ORGANIZATION OF MCAD 5 

Commissioners' Office 5 

Division of Investigations 5 

Public Sector Division 7 

Control Division 8 

Legal Division 9 

COMMISSIONERS OF MCAD 10 

MCADOFHCES 12 

MCAD Staff 13 

IntemsA'^ olunteers 13 

State Advisory Board 13 

THE COMPLAINT PROCESS 14 



MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIRMAN 



It is with great regret that we at MCAD report the 
seven-hundred-and-thirty-f ive-thousand-dollars in cuts 
sustained over the last two fiscal years is finally 
taking its toll on production at the Commission. MCAD 
will only close 2,000 cases this year, down from our 
all time high of 2,731 cases in 1989. Of even greater 
concern to the Commission is the fact that the drastic 
cuts in our budget have slowed the processing of the 
case from an average of 250 days in 1988 to over 350 
days . 

In effect, the people of Massachusetts have spoken. 
They voted to spend less on government. The result 
is the downsizing of MCAD from a full time staff of 
seventy to our present staff of forty this downsizing 
resulted in the unfortunate outcome mentioned above. 

Yet, MCAD's management team is hard at work finding 
innovative ways to maintain a high average-case-closing-ratio 
per staff using new methodologies. MCAD's staff averages 
over seventy case closings per investigator which is 
among the highest in the nation. With specific targeting, 
we at MCAD will honor our committment to the public 
to maintain confidence in our capability to deliver 
justice. 

It should be noted that, while our budget has been 
decreased, the legislature has asked us to do more, 
by passing new legislation such as the 1987 Handicapped 
Act, by removing the mandatory retirement age, by passing 
additional housing legislation and by adding coverage 
of discrimination based on sexual orientation. We 
champion these new protections, and even with less, 
we continue to pledge to find the way to do more. 
This annual report is testimony to the fact that good 
management and hard work lead to the accompli shme t 
of well developed goals. Once again, I congratulate 
the staff of MCAD for making our success possible. 



Alex Rodriguez 
Chairman 



WHAT IS MCAD? 



The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination was established in 1946 as the civil 
rights law enforcement agency for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Operating under a 
broad statutory mandate, the Commission is empowered to investigate and decide cases of 
discrimination in the areas of employment, housing, public accommodations, credit, 
services, and education. The Commission can receive complaints brought by individuals 
and organizations, and can initiate its own complaints. It has strong investigatory powers 
and clear authority to require remedies where discrimination has been found to exist. 

As a law enforcement agency, the MCAD's goal is full compliance with civil rights laws 
and regulations. In addition to handling complaints, the Commission promulgates rules and 
regulations, monitors and assists businesses and governments in their civil rights 
compliance efforts, provides educational programs for law enforcement officials who have 
civil rights enforcement responsibilities, and actively promotes broad public understanding 
of human rights issues. 

MCAD addresses discrimination on the basis of 

• race 

• color 

• religious creed 

• national origin 

• ancestry 

• sex 

• sexual orientation 
•age 

• marital status 

• persons with children 

• handicap status 

• source of income (receipt of public assistance) 

• military/veteran status 



MCAD has special responsibility for eliminating illegal discrimination in five major areas: 
Employinent 

The Fair Practices Law protects the rights of Massachusetts workers to obtain and 
maintain employment free of discrimination. It is illegal for an employer to 
discriminate in advertising, hiring, discharge, or in any terms or conditions of 
employment. 

Public and Private Housing 

The Fair Housing Law prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, or leasing of 
property, housing, or apartments, or in related services such as advertising, 
showing of property, or obtaining a mortgage. 



3 



Public Accommodations 

It is illegal to deny services or access to any place whether licensed or unlicensed, 
which solicits or accepts the patronage of the general public (such as hotels, 
restaurants, stores, transportation, hospitals, etc.). 

Credit and Service 

Denial of credit based on race, color, religious creed, sex, marital status, children, 
national origin, ancestry, age, handicap, or status as a recipient of public assistance 
is illegal. Discrimination is also prohibited in advertising, loan approvals, and 
extending credit. 

Educational Institutions 

Massachusetts mandates equal educational opportunities in admission to any 
educational institution which accepts students or applications from the general 
public. 



In addition to enforcing anti-discrimination law, the Governor's Executive Order 227 
charges MCAD with additional responsibilities, including advising the Governor's Cabinet 
Officers on policy and practices relating to the Commonwealth's affirmative action 
mandates. This includes reviewing applications for public funds to ensure equality of 
opportunity for racial and ethnic minorities, women, and people with disabilities. The 
Commission is also responsible for monitoring the State's contract compliance program, 
which requires recipients of discretionary state funding to implement and enforce programs 
that guarantee equaJity of opportunity for minorities and women. 



MCAD carries out its anti-discrimination and affirmative action mandates by: 

• receiving and processing complaints of discrimination brought by individuals and 
organizations; 

• educating the public through training programs, public speaking engagements, 
media campaigns, and participation in groups supporting human rights; 

• reviewing the activities of Massachusetts municipalities in order to assess and 
encourage compliance with fair practices, and to ensure that no public funds are 
spent in a discriminatory manner or in support of discriminatory practices; 

• initiating research activities and legal suits that may advance the rights of 
Massachusetts citizens. 



4 



NEW LEGISLATION AFFECTING MCAD 



Budget 

Several notable pieces of legislation affecting MCAD were enacted during Fiscal Year 
1990. In June 1989, the Massachusetts legislature severely cut MCAD's budget. With state 
funding of MCAD reduced nearly to 1982 levels, MCAD was forced to lay off eleven staff 
members. Staff layoffs and other cutbacks have necessitated a significant reallocation of 
MCAD's resources. 

On a separate budget item, Senator Bill Owens successfully introduced a rider to the state 
budget that allows MCAD to cover federal salaries between lapses in federal funding. 



An Act Making it Unlawful to Discriminate on the Basis of Sexual Orientation 
In November 1989, Governor Dukakis signed a law prohibiting discrimination on the basis 
of sexual orientation in the areas of employment, housing, credit and public 
accommodations. The law, endorsed by MCAD and co-sponsored by some 49 legislators, 
is the second state-wide statute in the nation prohibiting discrimination of the basis of 
sexual orientation. It adds a new protected category under the civil rights laws MCAD is 
charged with enforcing. 



An Act Further Regulating Housing Ri ghts for Certain Persons 

In January 1990, Governor Dukakis signed a law extending civil rights protections to 

people with disabilities in the area of housing. Among other things, the law 

(1) strengthened MCAD's enforcement mechanisms; (2) authorized MCAD to impose civil 

penalties in housing cases; (3) authorized MCAD to award attorney's fees to prevailing 

complainants in all discrimination complaints; and (4) created a mechanism for either the 

complainant or respondent to remove a case to Superior Court. The new law significantly 

enhances MCAD's anti-discrimination mandate. 



5 



ORGANIZATION OF MCAD 



The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination is organized into five sections: the 
Commissioners' Office, the Division of Investigations , the Public Sector Division, the 
Control Division, and the Legal Division. Department heads are located at the main offices 
in Boston. Satellite offices are located in New Bedford, Springfield, and Worcester. 



Commissioners' Office 

The Commissioners' Office is operated as a distinct section of the Commission. 
Commissioners are responsible for setting policy and deciding those cases that are not 
settled administratively. There are three Commissioners, one of whom chairs the 
Commission. The three Commissioners, sitting as a Commission, oversee the general 
operations of the entire Commission. Each of the commissioners is given primary 
responsibility for a particular region of the state. One is appointed from the western part of 
the state and serves in the MCAD's Springfield office; another carries special responsibility 
for Southeastem Massachusetts and assists the third Commissioner in overseeing the rest 
of the state. 

The Executive Assistant to the Commissioners develops the Commissioners' schedules to 
ensure that they meet their many obligations, which include Full Hearings, Appeal 
Hearings, case management, Commission Meetings, managers' meetings, training 
activities, speaking engagements, and other civic activities. The Executive Assistant to the 
Commissioners also acts as the press officer and the affirmative action officer for the 
agency. 



Division of Investigations 

The Division of Investigations receives and investigates all complaints brought to MCAD. 
Legislation that cut MCAD's budget in 1989 made it necessary to reallocate staff resources. 
As a consequence, the Division of Investigations acquired the responsibilities of the Public 
Sector Division's Housing Investigations Unit, which was dismantled in May 1990. The 
Division of Investigations now investigates all complaints concerning discrimination in 
education, employment, private and pubUc housing, credit, and public accommodations. 

In its investigations, the Division utilizes Fact-Finding Conferences, interrogatories, 
personal interviews, and on-site visits to search out infi^.mation concerning allegations of 
discrimination. During the investigation stage, the Division may provide an invaluable 
service to both the complainant and the respondent by airing their concerns and helping to 
defuse the matter. Investigators strive to both improve conditions and practices in the work 
place and to assist parties in arriving at a mutually satisfactory resolution. 

Despite budgetary constraints, MCAD boasts a high rate of success in favorably resolving 
its complaints. At 25 percent, MCAD's rate of Probable Cause findings is approximately 
ten percent higher than national rates of Probable Cause findings. When viewed in tandem 
with settlements, MCAD's rate of case closure in favor of the complainant is between 40 
and 50 percent. This ratio is significantiy higher than the national averages on case closures 
of this kind. 



6 



Number of Complaints Filed with MCAD 
for FY 1987, 1988, 1989 & 1990 
by Type of Complaint 



3500 T 
3000 
2500 
2000 - 
1500 - 
1000 - 
500 - 




mm 



in 





FY87 
(N=2797) 




FY88 
(N=3149) 




1^89 
(N=3177) 




FY90 
(N=3097) 



m Public Accommodations, Credit, 
Education 

D Housing 

M Employment 



Number of Complaints Filed with MCAD 
for FY 1987, 1988, 1989 & 1990 
by Basis of Complaint 




race/color sex age handicap ancestry/ public children marital relig.,vet. 

national assistance status crim.rec., 

origin sex.orient. 

inFY'90 



7 



Intern Program 

During the past several years, MCAD's work load has grown considerably. Since state 
funding of MCAD has not increased to match added demands on the agency, the E>ivision 
of Investigations developed a volunteer intem program to help meet its staffing needs. Most 
volunteer intems work in Investigations, although several have worked in MCAD's other 
divisions. 

Applications to become student intems are received from colleges around the country. 
Investigations intems are given a week-long training session at MCAD and are then 
assigned cases which they process and write up under close staff supervision. The program 
not only helps MCAD manage its case load, it also develops a pool of people 
knowledgeable about civil rights issues. The intem program has received warm responses 
from its many participants. 



Public Sector Division 

The Public Sector Division of MCAD is comprised of two units: Systemic Fair Housing 
Testing and Enforcement, and Civil Rights Review. Due to budgetary constraints, the 
Public Sector Division's Housing Investigations Unit was dismantled in May 1990, and its 
responsibilities were assigned to the Division of Investigations. 

Svstemic Fair Housing Testing and Enforcement Program 

Over the past several years, MCAD significantly expanded the operations of its Systemic 
Fair Housing Testing and Enforcement Program. The Systemic Program aims to combat 
large-scale, institutionalized housing discrimination in Massachusetts. The Systemic 
Program accomplishes this objective through two major program initiatives: 1) a Testing 
Program, in which housing providers in particular geographic areas are investigated for 
compUance with the fair housing laws by the use of matched sets of individuals who pose 
as homeseekers; and 2) an Enforcement Program, in which housing discrimination 
complaints are brought against those agencies found to discriminate. 

Major accomplishments of the past several years include: 

• Testing Program conducted in Framingham that investigated discrimination against 
blacks, Hispanics, and rental subsidy recipients. Complaints initiated against six 
real estate agencies and one property management company on the basis of the 
Testing Program's results. 

• Framingham complaints investigated, resulting in Probable Cause findings and the 
issuance of a forrnal report entitled Housing Discrimination in the Rental Market: A 
Report on the Barriers Faced by Women with Rental Subsidies, Blacks, and 
Hispanics. 

• Testing Program conducted in Waltham and Medford that investigated 
discrimination against blacks, rental subsidy recipients, and families with children. 
Complaints initiated against seven Waltham real estate agencies and four Medford 
agencies. 

• Majority of Framingham cases settled, with realty agencies agreeing to house an 
affirmative number of minority and female-headed households and to fund the 
position of a full-time fair housing monitor for two years to oversee their efforts. 

• A number of Waltham/Medford cases settled, with agencies agreeing to different 
affirmative remedies, including the funding of a staff person for the Greater Boston 



I 

8 



1 

j 

Civil Rights Coalition to oversee the implementation of a federal judicial order ' 
requiring metropolitan-wide programs to promote minority access to Boston's i 
suburban communities. 

I 

MCAD's program has been primarily funded through competitive grants received from the 
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. In 1990, the Systemic Program i 
became one of 25 finalists out of 1500 appUcants for a grant jointly sponsored by the Ford i 
Foundation and the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. i 



Civil Rights Review Unit 

The Civil Rights Review Unit is the conduit through which grant recipients achieve 
compliance with prevailing requirements. The Unit has two primary functions: one is 
overseeing the compliance of municipal governments and other aims of government with 
state affirmative action guidelines; the second is monitoring the state's contract compUance 
program, which requires recipients of discretionary state funding to implement and enforce 
programs that guarantee equality of opportunity for minorities and women. 

The Unit attempts to assist grant applicants in resolving affirmative action issues before 
they are litigated by working directly with municipalities in developing and implementing 
fair housing, equal employment, contract compliance, and minority/women business 
enterprise plans and materials. Proper plan development and implementation are necessary 
in order to qualify for federal and state grants. 

A recent court decision in NAACP, Boston Chapter v. Jack Kemp, Secretary ofU.S. 
Housing and Urban Development, et al. has had an impact on the responsibilities of the 
Public Sector Division of MCAD. In its decision, the court ruled that HUD had failed to 
properly monitor and administer its responsibilities in the area of fair housing. Part of the 
court's remedy includes requirements for HUD and the City of Boston to implement 
housing programs for affirmative outreach to minorities in the Boston Metropolitan 
Statistical Area. MCAD has developed base program requirements for compliance with the 
court's order and is pursuing a cooperative relationship with the parties charged in the case. 



Control Division 

Established in 1977 and expanded in 1987, the Control Division incorporates the financial 
and administrative functions of MCAD. As the planning and monitoring arm of the 
Commission, the Control Division provides information and recommendations on 
management of the agency's case load. The Control Division develops and manages the 
Commission's budget, which includes three yearly contracts from MCAD's federal 
counterparts, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the U.S. 
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In addition, the Division oversees 
the administrative support functions of the Commission. 

The Control Division maintains an agency-wide computer system that allows complaints to 
be input directiy on computers as they are received. Complaints and other correspondence 
are automatically forwarded to parties through the use of programs specifically designed for 
MCAD. The Division's computerized management information system allows tracking of 
individual cases and case flow and provides statistical information on trends in the number 
and type of cases being filed and closed at the Commission. 



I 



9 



Terrence Morris, MCAD's Deputy Director of Administration, was awarded one of the 
Commonwealth's F*ride in Performance Awards in 1989 for his accomplishments in the 
Control Division. The award is given annually to acknowledge outstanding achievements 
by state workers in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 



Legal Division 

The Legal Division serves as in-house counsel to the Commission. Duties of the legal staff 
are varied and include advising investigators on complex investigations, reviewing 
investigative recommendations, attempting conciliation following a Probable Cause 
finding, and prosecuting cases to public hearing when conciliation fails. Commission 
attorneys also represent the Commission in court. 

Some legal decisions during FY 1990 include: 

• In Worcester Housing Authority v. MCAD, the Supreme Judicial Court upheld a 
Commission determination that protections based on marital status are inclusive of 
unmarried couples. 

• In Lynn Teachers Union, Local 1037 v. MCAD, the Supreme Judicial Court upheld 
a Commission ruling that the union's failure to credit seniority to female employees 
who had been unlawfully forced to resign due to pregnancy was discriminatory. 



10 



COMMISSIONERS OF MCAD 



The MCAD is led by three commissioners who are appointed by the Governor for 
overlapping three-year terms. Each Commissioner is responsible for a particular geographic 
portion of the state. 

Commissioner Alex Rodriguez, Chairman 

Alex Rodriguez, a graduate of Goddard College and a former Loch Fellow at Harvard 
University, served as a member of the Commission from 1977 to 1981. In 1984, he was 
appointed to a three-year term as Chairman of the Commission by Govemor Michael S. 
Dukakis, and was subsequentiy reappointed to second and third three-year terms in 1987 
and 1990, respectively. He was previously Monitor for Special Education in Boston for the 
Massachusetts Superior Court, and Vice President of the United Community Planning 
Corporation. 

Commissioner Rodriguez is President of the United Lower Roxbury/South End 
Community Development Corporation and has served for many years as a Board Member 
of the Massachusetts and National Associations for Mental Health. He is active in 
community issues in the areas of bilingual education, community development, and multi- 
cultural and multi-group citizen involvement on the local, state, and national levels. 

As Chairman of the Commission, Commissioner Rodriguez is responsible for the overall 
management of the agency. 



Commissioner Frederick Hurst 

Frederick Hurst, the Western Massachusetts appointee to the Commission, was first 
appointed by Govemor Dukakis in 1984, and was reappointed in 1986 and 1989. 
Commissioner Hurst holds a Bachelor's degree from Howard University, studied for a 
doctorate at the University of Massachusetts, and received his law degree from De Paul 
University. He has clerked in the Office of the DUnois Attorney General, and, prior to his 
appointment to MCAD, he was an attorney with the Massachusetts Defenders Committee in 
Springfield. 

Commissioner Hurst is extensively involved in coinmunity activities in Westem 
Massachusetts and has served on the Board of the Urban League, as an Incorporator of the 
Springfield Harambee Cultural Festival, and as publisher of a community newsletter. 

Commissioner Hurst manages the MCAD's Springfield and Worcester offices and has 
special responsibility for the Westem Massachusetts activities of the Commission. 



Commissioner Kathleen Allen 

Kathleen Allen was appointed to the Commission by Govemor Dukakis in 1985 and was 
reappointed in 1988. She is based in the Boston office and carries special responsibiUty for 



11 



Southeastern Massachusetts. Commissioner Allen is a graduate of Lake Erie College and 
holds a master's degree and a law degree from Boston University. Prior to her appointment 
to the Commission, she served as private counsel for an NAACP- sponsored lawsuit on 
voting issues, was senior attomey with the Georgia Legal Services Program, and was a 
staff attomey with Greater Boston Legal Services. In addition, she was one of the founders 
of the first women's law collective in the United States, and she practiced law for five years 
with a general practice firm in Cambridge, Massachusetts. 

Commissioner Allen has a broad background in teaching law. She was Joshua A. 
Guberman Fellow and Lecturer in Legal Studies at Brandeis University, and she has taught 
courses on sex-based discrimination at Boston College Law School, Boston University 
Metropolitan College, and the University of Massachusetts. In addition, she has been a 
cUnical instructor of law at Harvard University Law School. 

Recentiy, Commissioner Allen served on an interagency task force on the state's sexual 
harassment poUcy. Based on the task force's recom ndations, the state's poUcy was 
expanded to incorporate specific procedures for ideniiiying, reporting, and investigating 
instances of sexual harassment in state government. 

Commissioner Allen chairs an interagency task force on AIDS. The task force, comprised 
of both federal and state agencies, looks at ways to resolve poUcy issues and to take inter- 
agency initiatives related to AIDS. The task force is currently woriang on a pamphlet 
detaihng agency resources for people with AIDS. Commissioner Allen is also a member of 
a committee focusing on issues of civil rights and pc e conduct in Bristol County. The 
committee will be conducting training seminars for i ce officers next fall. 



12 



MCAD OFFICES 



The main office of the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination is located in 
Boston. The Commissioners meet regularly in this office, and the staff of the Commission 
is managed from this location. MCAD also maintains offices in Worcester, Springfield, and 
New Bedford. All of the Commission's offices are open to receive telephone inquiries on 
weekdays from 8:45 AM to 5:00 PM; days on which complaints are accepted vary from 
office to office. Addresses and telephone numbers of MCAD offices are as follows: 



Boston Office 

617/727-3990 



Worcester Office 

508/752-2272 

Springfield Office 

413/739-3330 or 
413/739-2145 

New Bedford Office 

508/997-3191 



Sixth Roor, One Ashburton Place 
(McCormick State Office Building) 
Boston, MA 02108 

129 Lincoln Street 
Worcester, MA 01605 

145 State Street 
Springfield, MA 01 103 



53 North 6th Street, Room 203 
New Bedford, MA 02740 



MCAD has a strong network of regional advisory councils across the state. The Statewide 
Advisory Board, appointed by the Govemor, coordinates the activities of the regional 
advisory councils, reviews the implementation of the Commission's programs and policies, 
and advises both the Commission and the Govemor on matters of policy affecting the 
Commission. Board and Council members serve without compensation. 

The regional advisory councils are based in Boston, Cape Cod, Lawrence, New Bedford, 
Pittsfield, and Worcester. These Councils include representatives of major lending and 
credit institutions; major private employers; local post-secondary educational institutions; 
labor organizations; owners and brokers of residential property; local personnel or civil 
service administrators; women; racial, ethnic, and linguistic groups; elderly persons; 
persons with disabilities; and recipients of public assistance. 



r 



13 



JVICALI atatl (r I lyyyj) 


Marien Garcia 


John Ramos 




Eugenia Guastaferri 


Migdalia Rivera 


Elizabeth Addivinola 


Edda Howard 


Alex Rodriguez 


T_l A 1 

John Aheam 


Frederick Hurst 


Concetta Rossetti 


Kathleen Allen 


Marlania Jones 


Laurie Rubin 


Luther Allen 


Judith Kaplan 


Elaine Rucks 


Teresa Angers 


Jerrold Levinsky 


Abigail Soto-Colon 


Nancy Barnes 


EdieLockhart 


Ethel Stoute 


Beth Cabral 


Denise Lussier 


Janice Symons 


Laura Canty 


Katherine Martin 


Dene Titus 


Peter Cardia 


Melvina Monteiro 


Ronald Traylor 


Alan Cassella 


Terrence Moms 


Evelyn Tyler 


Jeannette Christy 


Jean Musiker 


James Vance 


Jean Qanton 


Wah Don Ng 


Francisco Villalobos 


Sylvia Cohen 


Carolyn Packard 


T> n ,1-1 n ■■! I 

Barbara Walsh 


EHane Cote 


Lorenzo Parra 


Lois Wilcox 


Judith Cummings 


Margot Perry 


Ceua Worrell 


Vivian doCarmo 


Susan Ponte 


Judith Wright 


Sharyn Dreyer 


Victor Posada 


Franklin Young 


Interns/Volunteers 


Troy Glover 


Jason Monroe 




Darren Goldfarb 


Surekha Paruchur 


Martin L. Abramson 


Brenda Goodrich 


Delilah S. Paseos 


Jennifer Adler 


Bryan Greene 


Lakhana Peou 


Bary Lyn Barton 


Alba Guzman 


Lisa L. Perry 


Katherine Beaird 


Anurada Hebbar 


Morgan Peters 


Steve Butzel 


Kristen Hertz 


Eliot Rosado 


Bradley R. Carlson 


Amson Hill 


Robin Rosencrantz 


Neil Cohen 


C. Paige Hinkson 


Edith Sanchez 


David Coveney 


Allison Jacobson 


Lois Santiago 


Jackie B. Curley 


Julia Kogan 


Gail Schwartz 


Lynn T. Dann 


Katherine Lamothe 


Rutledge Simmons 


Alicia EUard 


Carole Landers 


Grace Simms 


Ltebra Feldstem 


Michael Levin 


Robert A. Snyder 


Henry Fernandez 


Lami Levy 


Bonita Thompson 


Dustin Forand 


Aime Maloney 




Lyndia J. German 


Natasha Maynard 




State Advisory Board 


Joseph Eid 


John J. Nyhan 


Myron Alexander 


Dr. Luis Fuentes 


Thomas O'Brien 


John Blount 


Betty A. Gittes 


Mary O. Obver 


Janet Boyle 


Dr. PhyUis S. Glick 


Randolph G. Peters 


Artnur Bngnt 


Polly F. Jackson 


Carolyn A. Reed 


ur. Dradiord K. Brown 


William Krasnow 


William L. Ross 


Judith O. Brown 


Marcella Lancome 


Phyllis N. Segal 




nCITJCll IvCIIlCiilldll 


nVlayX OCiUUll 


Peter K. Chan 


Jorge Luna 


John A. Senna 


Francis Chang 


Ronald McLean 


James A. Sullivan 


Leonard P. Cooper 


Thomas A. Mela 


Francis A. Taggert 


Joseph E. Corcoran 


Jimmie F. Mitchell 


May Ling Tong 


James R. Davis 


Hattie Moreland 


Delda White 


Judith N. Dilday 


Richard Mundo 


Bruce A. Young 



14 



THE COMPLAINT PROCESS 

The complaint process is the primary method by which MCAD fulfills its anti-discrimination 
mandate. An individual who feels she or he has been discriminated against may bring a 
complaint to MCAD. MCAD will investigate the complaint and seek to resolve it. 

Four principles are integral to the MCAD complaint process: 

1. The MCAD is an impartial, objective investigating agency. MCAD is not "for" or 
"against" anyone or any side. Investigators are neutral and professional, and their 
actions are based on facts and evidence. 

2. Complaints must be timely, and must generally be filed within six months of the 
alleged discriminatory act. Massachusetts law requires that all investigations 
proceed promptly. To keep cases moving, the law imposes certain deadlines that 
must be observed. 

3. The Commission encourages and actively works to achieve settlements. It is in 
the interest of both parties to achieve a voluntary resolution to the complaint 
whenever possible. 

4. Massachusetts Law (MGL Chapter 15 IB, Section 4(4)), specifically prohibits 
retaliation against any person who has filed a complaint, participated in an 
investigation, or otherwise opposed allegedly discriminatory practices. The MCAD 
strongly enforces this law. Any harassment or action adverse to the complainant or 
witnesses is investigated and aggressively prosecuted. 

How the Complaint Process Works 

1) Filing the complaint. An individual wishing to file a complaint contacts the nearest 
MCAD office. The complainant meets with an investigator and gives a summary of the 
specific acts of alleged unlawful discrimination, including: 

• the dates on which the alleged discriminatory acts occurred; 

• a list of the names, titles, business addresses, and telephone numbers of persons 
charged with committing unlawful discrimination; 

• names of witnesses, if any; 

• any supporting documentation, such as notices, leases, and comparative data; 

• details of any financial losses suffered as a result of the alleged discrimination. 

If the complaint falls within the Commission's jurisdiction, the investigator drafts a formal 
complaint based on the information provided by the complainant. The complaint is mailed 
to the individual or organization charged with committing unlawful discrimination, who is 
asked to respond to the allegations. 

2) The investigation process. Based on the respondent's answers to the complaint, the 
investigator advises whether there is reasonable basis for settlement. A Settlement 
Conference may be convened with both the complainant and the respondent. Many cases 
are closed in this manner. 

If the case is not settled at this stage, the investigator commences further investigation 
through various means, including interrogatories and document requests. The investigator 



15 



may convene a Fact-Finding Conference at which the complainant and respondent, as well 
as appropriate witnesses, are present. 

3) Causal determination. Based on the information obtained during the investigation 
process, the Investigating Commissioner makes a finding of either Probable Cause or Lack 
of Probable Cause. A finding of Probable Cause is made when the Investigating 
Commissioner concludes that there is sufficient evidence upon which a fact-finder could 
form a reasonable belief that the respondent committed unlawful discrimination. Such a 
finding reserves disputes involving genuine issues of material fact for determination at a 
public hearing. The complainant has the right to appeal a determination of Lack of Probable 
Cause by filing a request within ten (10) days of the initial determination. 

A finding of Probable Cause entities the complainant and the respondent to elect an 
administrative public hearing or a judicial determination of the case in state court. If neither 
party elects to go to state court, the complzdnant may either retain private counsel or be 
represented by one of the Commission's staff attorneys in further attempts at conciliation. 

4) Public Hearing . If further attempts at conciUation fail, the Commission convenes a 
PubUc Hearing, which is an adjudicatory hearing at which one of the three Commissioners 
presides. Both the complainant and respondent, or their representatives, present their cases 
at the public hearing. The presiding Commissioner enters an order based on the facts 
presented at the hearing. Both the complainant and the respondent have the right to appeal 
the decision to the full Commission and then to Superior Court on the basis of the record 
established at the Commission proceedings. 



Settling a Case 

The MCAD emphasizes the importance of settiement at every stage in the complaint 
process. Since it is in the interest of lx)th parties to achieve a mutually agreeable resolution 
in a timely fashion, the Commission seeks to bring the complainant and respondent 
together as soon as possible to discuss settlement options. A case can be formally closed if 
a settlement agreement is made prior to a Commission determination. A settlement is not an 
admission of guilt or liabiUty by either party. 

A settiement is reached if both the respondent and the complainant make an agreement that 
is approved by the Commission. Settiement may occur at any point in the complaint 
process, and may be suggested by either or both parties, or by a representative of MCAD. 
A representative of MCAD reviews all settiements for fairness. 



Prepared by Bradley R. Carlson 




Annual Report 



S\a\e bbrary ^^^^^ 
S\3te b 



Boston 




M4lfr 
c-2- 



Message from the Chairman 



Governor William Weld 
Lieutenant Governor Paul Cellucci 
Members of the General Court 
Citizens of the Commonwealth, 



IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL 
Laws, Chapter 151(B), Section 3, I am pleased to pre- 
sent to you the annual report for the Massachusetts 
Commission Against Discrimination. 

The end of Fiscal Year 1991 finds the MCAD at a cross- 
roads in its history. The deep cuts in state appropriations 
the Commission had sustained under the previous admin- 
istration have stopped, and the MCAD's budget and staff 
size have stabilized. In Fiscal Year '92, by recommendation 
of Governor Weld with the concurrence of the Legislature, 
the agency is essentially level funded. 

The challenge now is to fulfill our mandate as the 
Commonwealth's chief civil rights agency with a staff that 
is less than half the size it was seven years ago. Some of the 
old ways of doing things that had served the MCAD well 
in the past break down when working with fewer resources 
and a caseload topping 6,500. During the first year of my 
tenure as Chairman of the Commission, I have established 
three priorities: 

1) improving the quality of justice the MCAD metes 
out in investigation, prosecution and hearing of com- 
plaints of discrimination filed at the Commission; 

2) reaching out to "newly enfranchised" groups who 
have only recently been accorded civil rights protec- 
tions, including lesbians and gay men, persons with 
disabilities, and persons with AIDS; 

3) helping African American, Latino, Asian American, 
and women owned businesses to get their fair share 
of the work generated by publicly funded projects, 
including the construction of the third harbor 
tunnel and the central artery depression. 

To these ends, I have taken the following actions since I 
took office on March 14, 1991: 



• I took an immediate 20 percent pay cut upon being 
sworn in, effective to the end of the fiscal year, in 
order to free funds to help close cases 

• the MCAD has engaged the management consulting 
firm of Arthur Anderson to do a pro bono manage- 
ment audit of the Commission 

• the Commission has recruited over 50 volunteers to 
assist in our work 

• I have convened an "AIDS Ombudsman " group to 
regularly review our progress in investigating open 
AIDS/HIV discrimination cases 

• the Commission has begun the process of reviewing 
the effectiveness of current public accommodations 
regulations for the Commonwealth's citizens with 
disabilities 

• the Commission is making plans to assist in conduct- 
ing a disparity study to support Minority and 
Women Business Enterprise programs throughout 
the entire Executive Branch 

• under the leadership of former Commissioner 
Kathleen Allen, the MCAD conducted a series of 
public hearings to gather evidence in support of 
minority and women business enterprises. The result- 
ing document will serve as a cornerstone in any 
future legal defense of such programs. 

As Chairman, I am constantly evaluating and re-evalu- 
ating the way the Commission does business, with an eye 
toward greater efficiency and increased effectiveness. We 
need to rethink not our mission but our methodology, for 
ultimately the MCAD must innovate and adapt if it is to 
remain a viable civil rights enforcement agency. 




Chairman 



History and Mission 



SIX VI ARS Bi;Ft)RF, IHE C:iVlL WAR, Wit COMMt)N- 
wealth of Massachusetts first pioneered laws 
forbidding discrimination in public education and 
public accommodations. These noteworthy efforts, how- 
ever, tailed to address discriminatory practices in the 
workplace. Employment discrimination in 1855 was not 
only legal in Massachusetts, but was commonly practiced. 

The Commonwealth's first enforcement agency for civil 
rights legislation, the Fair Employment Practices 
Commission, was founded in 1946. In 1950, the 
Commission's name was changed to the Massachusetts 
Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD). In the 
mid-1970's, the structure changed from four part-time 
commissioners to three kill-time commissioners. The 
MCAD grew substantially throughout the 1960's and 
1970's as the agency absorbed increasing responsibility 
under jurisdictional changes resulting from new state and 
federal laws. The MCAD's budget and staff increased 
steadily until the mid-1 980's, when budget restrictions 
forced cutbacks. The MCAD's workload has continued to 
expand despite these cutbacks. 

The MCAD's goal is full compliance with civil rights 
laws and regulations. The Commission is empowered to 
investigate and decide cases of discrimination in the areas 
of employment, housing, public accommodations, credit, 
services, and education. In addition to handling com- 
plaints, the Commission promulgates rules and 
regulations; monitors and assists businesses and govern- 
ments in their civil rights compliance efforts; sponsors 
educational programs for law enforcement officials who 
have civil rights enforcement responsibilities; and actively 
promotes broad public understanding of human rights 
issues. 

The MCAD addresses discrimination on the basis of: 



• race 

• color 

• religious creed 

• national origin 

• ancestry 

• sex 

• sexual orientation 



•age 

• marital status 

• persons with children 

• disability 

• receipt of public assistance 

• military/veteran status 

• criminal record 



I 

Executive Order 227 charges the MCAD with addi- | 
tional responsibilities, including advising the Governor's ' 
Cabinet Officers on policy and practices relating to the 
Commonwealth's affirmative action mandates. This 
includes reviewing the applications of cities and towns fori 
public funds to ensure equality of opportunity for racial | 
and ethnic minorities, women, and people with disabili- | 
ties. The Commission is also responsible for monitoring , 
the State's contract compliance program, which requires ' 
recipients of discretionary state fiinding to implement andj 
enforce programs that guarantee equality of opportunity > 

for minorities and women. 1 

I 

MCAD carries out its anti-discrimination and affirma- | 
tive action mandates by: 

• receiving and processing complaints of discrimination 
brought by individuals and organizations; 

• educating the public through training programs, pub- 
lic speaking engagements, media campaigns, and 
participation in groups supporting human rights; ' 

• reviewing the activities of Massachusetts municipali- j 
ties in order to assess and encourage compliance withj 
fair practices, and to ensure that no public funds are 
spent in a discriminatory manner or in support of 
discriminatory practices; 

• initiating research activities and legal suits that may ^ 
advance the rights of Massachusetts citizens. 

During the past decade, Massachusetts has continued w 
lead the nation in the area of civil rights. Persons with dis- 
abilities were accorded protection under the state's civil | 
rights laws in 1983 — nearly a full decade before passage of; 
the national Americans with Disabilities Act. AIDS was ^ 
subsequently classified as a disability, thereby protecting 
persons with AIDS from discrimination under the disabil-; 
ity law. In 1989, the Commonwealth enacted one of the 
country's first state-wide sexual orientation laws, guaran- j 
teeing civil rights protections to lesbians and gay men in i 
housing, employment, public accommodations and credit.; 



2 



Organization of MCAD 



Commissioners' Office 

Commissioners are responsible for setting policy for the 
MCAD, determining if there exists probable cause to 
believe discrimination occurred, and hearing cases. Each of 
the three Commissioners is given primary responsibility 
for a particular region: one is appointed from the western 
part of the state and serves in the MCAD's Springfield 
office; another carries special responsibility for 
southeastern Massachusetts; the third oversees 
the administration of the Boston area. 



Commissioners' 
Office 




Division of Investigations 

The Division of 
Investigations receives and 
investigates complaints con- 
cerning discrimination in 
education, employment, pri- 
vate and public housing, 

credit, and public accommodations. In its investigations, 
the Division utilizes Fact-Finding Conferences, interroga- 
tories, personal interviews, and on-site visits to search out 
information concerning allegations of discrimination. 
During the investigation stage, this Division may provide 
an invaluable service both to the complainant and the 
respondent by airing their concerns and helping to defuse 
the matter. Investigators strive to improve conditions and 
practices in the work place and to help parties arrive at a 
mutually satisfactory resolution without having to go to 
public hearing. 

Program & Administration Division 

Systemic Fair Housing Testing and Enforcement Program 
This program aims to combat large-scale, institutional- 
ized housing discrimination in Massachusetts through two 
major program initiatives: 1) a Testing Program, which 
investigates housing providers in particular geographic 
areas for compliance with fair housing laws; 



Division of 
Investigations 



and 2) an Enforcement Program, which brings housing 
discrimination complaints against those agencies found to 
discriminate. 

Civil Rights Review Unit 

The Civil Rights Review Unit is the conduit through 
which grant recipients achieve compliance with prevailing 
requirements. The Unit has two primary functions: 1) it 
oversees compliance of municipal governments 
and other arms of government with state affirma- 
tive action guidelines; 2) it monitors the state's 
contract compliance program, which requires 
recipients of discretionary 
state funding to implement 
and enforce programs that 
guarantee equality of oppor- 
tunity for minorities and 
women. 



Program & 
Administration 
Division 



Control Unit 

The Control Unit incorporates the financial and admin- 
istrative functions of MCAD. As the planning and 
monitoring arm of the Commission, the Control Unit 
provides information and recommendations on manage- 
ment of the agency's case load. The Control Unit develops 
and manages the Commission's budget, which includes 
three yearly contracts from MCAD's federal counterparts, 
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 
(EEOC) and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 
Development (HUD). In addition, the Unit oversees the 
administrative support functions of the Commission. 

Legal Division 

The Legal Division serves as in-house counsel to the 
Commission. Duties of the legal staff are varied, and 
include advising investigators on complex investigations, 
reviewing investigative recommendations, attempting con- 
ciliation following a Probable Cause finding, and 
prosecuting cases to public hearing when conciliation fails. 
Commission attorneys also represent the MCAD in court. 



3 



Budget 



IN 1979, THE MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION 
Against Discrimination was appropriated $975,000 by 
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. In 1991, fully 
twelve years later, state funding has risen to $1,156,000 — 
an increase of only $181,000. During this same period, the 
number of complaints filed at the Commission increased 
more than 50 percent. A decade and a half of underfund- 
ing poses great challenges for the MCAD in fulfilling its 
obligations and responsibilities. 

One of the ways the Commission has responded to the 
paucity of state funding is by seeking funds from the fed- 
eral government. Federal funds to the Commission have 
increased from $690,000 in 1979 to $860,000 in fiscal 
year 1991. These funds, which are disbursed by the 
Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development 
(HUD) and the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission (EEOC), are predicated on the number of 
investigations and case closures achieved by the MCAD 
each year. The Commission is currently using every means 
available to maximize federal funding in Fiscal Year 1992. 

The Commission has sought to augment state and fed- 
eral appropriations with private resources, both financial 
and in-kind. The Commission has applied for grants from 
the Ford Foundation, and currently is a finalist for a grant 
from the Massachusetts Bar Foundation. Volunteers to the 
Commission have been recruited to assist with the backlog 
created by the reduction in staff This summer, over 50 
interns have been deployed to assist in investigating and 
closing backlogged cases. The Massachusetts legal commu- 
nity is being tapped to represent complainants whose cases 
are going to Public Hearing. Volunteers across the state are 
being trained to take complaints at locations outside of 
MCAD offices. 



State and Federal Appropriations 



$2,000,000 



$1,500,000 



$1,000,000 



$500,000 




_l i_ 



J I I I 



1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 



State — — Federal 




Massachusetts Comj 

Discrimination 
Fiscal Year 1991 Budget 

Funding 

State Administration $ 985,000 

State Retained Revenue 96,000 

State Welfare Contract 75,000 

Subtotal, State Funding. 1, 156,000 

Federal HUD Title VIII 283,000 

Federal HUD FHIP Grant 1 34,000 

Federal HUD FHIP Grant II 65,000 

Federal Equal Employment Contract 481,000 

Subtotal, Federal Funding 863, 000 

Total Commission Funding $2,019,000 

Expenses 

Personnel $1,320,000 

Contract Personnel 250,000 

Other Personnel Costs 190,000 

Office Rent 28,000 

Telephone 25,000 

Equipment Maintenance 51 ,000 

Office Supplies 136,000 

Travel 6,000 

Postage 13,000 

Total Expenses $2,019,000 



Caseload 



3500 



Cases Filed 

If current trends continue through the end of calendar year 
1991, over 3,600 cases will be filed at the Massachusetts 
Commission Against Discrimination — an all-time record. 
This figure is up from 3,100 filings in 1990, and 3,200 in 
both 1988 and 1989. Complaint filings in the past typically 
have increased during economic downturns, and this reces- 
sion appears to be no exception. 



3000 



2500 



2000 



1500 



1000 



500 



1985 1988 



1987 



1988 1989 



1990 



6,000 



5,000 



4,000 



3,000 



2,000 



1,000 




1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 



MCAD Staff 

The number of staff at the MCAD has declined precipi- 
ously over the last four to eight years. The Commission's 
:urrent staffing level is less than half what it was six years ago. 
The MCAD appears especially lean when compared with the 
i^ill-time staffing levels of its counterparts in Connecticut and 
^ew York State. 



Case Inventory 

The case inventory — the number of open cases at the 
Commission — reached 6,000 in 1990, and currently stands 
at approximately 6,500. The backlog is the predictable result 
of several years of steady or increased case filings, decreased 
staff and resources, and unmodified operating procedures. 
The backlog will only be reduced when the MCAD's 
resources are increased and when the Commission's ability to 
more efficiently investigate and prosecute cases improves. 



90 

80 

70 I 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 



1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 



5 



Caseload 



Public 
Accomodations 



Education 

1% 




Complaints by Type ' 

The number of complaints filed at the Massachusetts Commission Against 
Discrimination varies directly with ups and downs in the business cycle. As the i 
economy in Massachusetts has worsened, rising unemployment, increases in the 1 
amount of time it takes to find employment, and a sluggish housing market have' 
affected the types of cases being filed at the MCAD. Complaints of discriminatioi 
in employment are up dramatically. With every new round of layoffs, the MCAD 
receives a spate of claims of employment discrimination. Employment cases now 
constitute roughly 80 percent of the claims filed. Conversely, the weak housing 
market seems to have resulted in a decline in the number of housing discriminati( 
complaints being filed. 



Complaints by Protected Class 

Changes in the make-up of complaints at the MCAD reflect the 
new protected classes the legislature has added under Massachusetts 
anti-discrimination laws. One of the most dramatic changes has 
been the steady increase in the number of persons with disabilities 
who are filing claims. Whereas a little less than a decade ago per- 
sons with disabilities had no standing for filing at the MCAD, 
disability cases now constitute roughly 20 percent of the complaints 
filed annually. 

Another trend is the increase in the number of age-related com- 
plaints, which may be attributable either to demographic changes 
or layoffs. In the future, the Commission expects to see a significant 
increase in the number of sexual orientation, maternity leave, and 
sexual harassment cases, if current trends continue. 




Source of 
Income 2% 



Marital { 
Status 1% I 



Number of Days to Closure 

One of the most troubling developments at the MCAD over the 
last four years has been the increase in the average number of days it] 
takes to close a case. In calendar year 1 990, the average case took ' 
roughly 460 days to be resolved. The Commission views this figure a 
unacceptably high, and is dedicated to speeding up case processing. 



1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 



I 



Filing a Complaint 



AN INDIVIDUAL WISHING TO FILE A COMPLAINT 
should contact the nearest MCAD office to meet 
with an investigator and give a summary of the spe- 
cific acts of alleged unlawful discrimination, including: 

• the dates on which the alleged discriminatory acts 
occurred; 

• a list of the names, titles, business addresses, and tele- 
phone numbers of persons charged with committing 
unlawful discrimination; 

• names of witnesses, if any; 

• any supporting documentation, such as notices, 
leases, and comparative data; 

• details of any financial losses suffered as a result of the 
alleged unlawful discrimination. 

If the complaint falls within the Commission's jurisdic- 
tion, the investigator drafts a formal complaint based on 
the information provided by the complainant. The com- 
plaint is mailed to the respondent (individual or orga- 
nization) charged with committing the discriminatory act, 
who is asked to respond to the allegations. 

Investigation 

Based on the respondent's answers to the complaint, the 
investigator advises whether there is a reasonable basis for 
settlement. A Settlement Conference may be convened 
with both the complainant and the respondent. Many 
cases are closed in this manner. 

If the case is not settled at this stage, the investigator 
commences further investigation through various means, 
including interrogatories and document requests. The 
investigator may convene a Fact-Finding Conference at 
which the complainant and respondent, as well as appro- 
priate witnesses, are present. 

Causal Determination 

Based on the information obtained during the investiga- 
tion process, the Investigating Commissioner makes a 
finding of either Probable Cause or Lack of Probable 
Cause. 



If Probable Cause is found, the complainant and the 
respondent may elect an administrative public hearing or a 
judicial determination of the case in state court. If neither 
party elects to go to state court, the complainant may 
either retain private counsel or be represented by one oi 
the Commission's staff attorneys in further attempts at 
conciliation. 

If a Lack of Probable Cause determination is made, the 
complainant may appeal the finding by filing a request 
within ten (10) days of the initial determination. 

Public Hearing 

If further attempts at conciliation fail, the Commission 
convenes a Public Hearing at which one of the three 
Commissioners presides. Both the complainant and 
respondent, or their representatives, present their cases at 
the public hearing. The presiding Commissioner enters an 
order based on the facts presented at the hearing. Both the 
complainant and the respondent have the right to appeal 
the decision to the full Commission and then to Superior 
Court on the basis of the record established at the 
Commission proceedings. 




Early Resolution Process 




le MCAD emphasizes the importance of settle- 
ment at every stage in the complaint process. 
Since it is in the interest of both parties to achieve 
a mutually agreeable resolution in a timely fash- 
ion, the Commission seeks to bring the 
complainant and respondent together as soon as 
possible to discuss settlement options. A case can 
be formally closed if a settlement agreement is 
made prior to a Commission determination. A 
settlement is not an admission of guilt or liability 
by either party. This fall, the staff of the 
Investigations and Legal Divisions will undergo 
training designed to improve their mediation and 
conciliation skills. 




7 



Commissioners/Advisory Board 



Commissioner Michael Duffy, Chairman 

Michael Duffy was appointed to a three year term as 
Chairman of the Commission by Governor William F. 
Weld in March 1991 . Commissioner Duffy is a Phi Beta 
Kappa graduate of Trinity College, where he received a 
Bachelor's degree in Economics. Before graduating, Duffy 
worked as a research assistant in both the Connecticut 
Legislature and the British House of Commons. In 1987, 
he earned a Master's Degree in Public Policy from Harvard 
University's Kennedy School of Government. Prior to his 
appointment to the Commission, Duffy had worked for 
Congressman Christopher Shays, the Massachusetts 
Republican Party, and a non-profit - ^ 

agency — Little Brothers-Friends of 
the Elderly. 

Commissioner Duffy is actively 
involved in the community. He is a 
member of the Coalition for Lesbian 
and Ciny Civil Rights, and he serves 
on the Board of Governors of the 
Log Cabin Club. Commissioner 
Duffy is based in the Boston office, 
and carries special responsibility for 
the greater Boston area. As Chair- 
man, he is responsible for the overall 
management of the agency. 



Statewide Advisory Board 

According to Massachusetts General Laws, 
Chapter 6, Section 6, "The Governor shall appoint 
an Advisory Board to the Commission, consisting of 
not less than twenty-one persons, who shall serve 
at his pleasure, ... The Board shall advise the 
Commission and the Governor on matters of policy 
affecting the Commission, and shall review the 
implementation of the Commission's programs and 
policies and from time to time report their conclu- 
sions to the Commission and the Governor." 

Advisory Board Members: 



Marjorie Perry, 
Co-Chair 
Naomi Adelberg 
John Adkins 
Benjamin Fierro 
Linda Giles 
Lynn Girton 
Shirley Gomes 
Lawrence Hogan 
Sherman Josephson 
John Kelly 
David LaFontaine 



Commissioner 
Alex Rodriguez 

Alex Rodriguez, a graduate of 
Goddard College and a former Loeb 
Fellow at Harvard University, served 
as a member of the Commission 
from 1 977 to 1 98 1 . In 1 984, he was 
appointed to a three-year term as Chairman of the 
Commission by Governor Michael S. Dukakis, and he was 
subsequently reappointed to second and third terms in 
1987 and 1990. He was previously Monitor for Special 
Education in Boston for the Massachusetts Superior 
Court, and Vice President of the United Community 
Planning Corporation. 

Commissioner Rodriguez is President of the United 
Lower Roxbury/South End Community Development 



Corporation, and has served for many years as Board I 
Member of the Massachusetts and National Associations 
for Mental Health. He is active in community issues in thei 
areas of bilingual education, community development, andi 
multi-cultural and multi-group citizen involvement on the , 
local, state, and national levels. ^ 

Commissioner Rodriguez resigned in July 1991. j 

Commissioner Fredericl( Hurst 

Frederick Hurst, the Western Massachusetts appointee j 
to the Commission, was first appointed by Governor 
Dukakis in 1984, and was reappointed in 1986 and 1989. - 
Commissioner Hurst holds a 
Bachelor's degree from Howard ^ 
University, studied for a doctorate \ 
at the University of Massachusetts, , 
and received a law degree from De ' 
Paul University. He has clerked in 
the Office of the Illinois Attorney 
General and, prior to his appoint- j 
ment to the MCAD, he was an 
attorney with the Massachusetts 
Defenders Committee in 
Springfield. l 

Commissioner Hurst is exten- 
sively involved in community , 
activities in western Massachusetts, , 
and has served as a member of the , 
Board of Directors and Executive 
Committee of Springfield Central; 
Trustee of the Bay State Medical 
Center, and of the Springfield 
Library & Museum Association; 
Member of the Board of Directors 
of the Community Music School of Springfield, the 
Community Mental Health Center of Springfield, and the 
Springfield Urban League; Member of the Springfield 
NAACP and of the Harambee Holiday Committee. 

Commissioner Hurst manages the MCAD's Springfield 
office, and has responsibility for the western Massachusetts 
activities of the Commission. 



'Tom SaltonstaN, 

Co-Chair 
> Harold Langford 
' Patricia Lomans 

• Alexander Macmillan 
' Eve Moss 

• Haydee Nazario 
' Nam Van Pham 
' Kimball Pino 

• Prema Popat 

' Glendora Putnam 
' Herman Wheeler 



8 



Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination 

f^np AcKKiirrnn Plarp Ro<;rr>n- Massachusetts 02108 • (617) 727-3990 




Annual Report 





tn 

% 

(D 

rr. 

0) cr 

o g. 

CO 

(D 
— 





MCAD: 



ESTABLISHED 1946 



I 



MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIRMAN 



Governor William Weld 
Lieutenant Governor Paul Cellucci 
Members ot the General Court 
Citizens of the Commonwealth, 



In accordance with the Massachusetts General Laws, 
Chapter 151(B), Section 3, I am pleased to present to 
you the annual report for the Massachusetts 
Commission Against Discrimination. 

Fiscal Year 1 992 was one of change and innovation 
for the Commission. Governor Weld appointed two new 
Commissioners to the mcad — Naomi Mattel! in August, 
and Georgia Thomas Parks in January — giving the three 
member Commission a completely new composition. The 
Governor demonstrated his strong commitment to civil 
rights through his recommendation of an increase in fund- 
ing for the Commission for the next fiscal year, despite the 
difficult fiscal conditions that prevail in state government. 
This will be the first such increase for the Commission in 
five years. 

The Governors Budget Recommendations also con- 
tained "Output Goals" against which the Commission's 
performance was to be measured. I am proud to report 
that for each of the three Output Goals for Fiscal Year '92, 
the Commission has exceeded the benchmarks set by the 
Governor. The number of cases the Commission resolved 
during the last fiscal year is unmatched in the Commission's 
46 year history, with a staff size that is at a twenty-year low. 
The backlog has been reduced by close to 1 0% of what it 
was a year ago, and individual cases are being resolved 
more rapidly than before. 

While it is true that past cuts in funding contributed 
to the gridlock that beset the agency in the late 1980s, 
the chief cause of the mcad's problems was not a lack 
of resources. Indeed, a Lawyer's Weekly ed\ion2l in 1985 
called for the Commission to be abolished for "prov[ing] 
to be an abysmal failure " at a time when the Commission's 



staff and resources were at an all-time high. It was poor 
management, outdated administrative procedures, and a 
failure to innovate that drove the agency's case load close 
to seven thousand and caused Complainants and Respondents 
alike to despair of ever getting their cases resolved. 

To meet the challenge of investigating and resolving the 
3,600 cases that are annually filed at the Commission with 
a staff of 37 people, we have been guided by an entrepreneurial 
approach to public management. Some of the ways the 
Commission does business are vestiges of the overhaul the 
agency underwent in 1 977 and others date back to the 
agency's founding in 1 946. Many of these standard operat- 
ing procedures continue to serve the Commission well, but 
others are now outdated and no longer viable. In the spirit 
of entrepreneurial government, the mcad is tackling the 
following problems with some innovative solutions. 

Problem: Cuts in the mcad budget made the maintenance 
of regional offices impossible, and the Commission was 
forced to close its offices in Worcester and New Bedford 
last year. This left only Boston and Springfield to serve the 
citizens of the Commonwealth for the filing and investiga- 
tion of complaints. 

Solution: The Commission has formed working partner- 
ships with municipal civil rights agencies around the 
Commonwealth to have them take and investigate cases 
of discrimination in their area. The mcad has already 
established a working partnership with the Cambridge 
Human Rights Commission, is about to sign one with 
the New Bedford Commission on Human Relations, and 
is working on an agreement with the city of Worcester. 



2 



MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIRMAN 



I 



c ^ 



Problem: Many people come to the mcad with the mistaken 
belief that they have a bona fide complaint, when in fact 
theif concern is not covered under state law or could be 
dealt with more appropriately by another state agency. 
In the past, these cases were being routinely docketed and 
were needlessly clogging up the case inventory. 
: Solution: Every person who wishes to fde a complaint with 
I the Commission must first meet with a customer service 
I representative who will speak with them privately to deter- 
i mine if they have the basis for a complaint. Over 50% 
1 of the people who now come into the mcad to file a 
complaint, walk out without having done so because the 
i Commission lacks the jurisdiction to investigate their case. 

' Problem: The Commission could no longer aiiford the use 
of stenographers to create a record of public hearings or for 

'. Commission attorneys to conduct depositions. The num- 
ber of public hearings conducted by the Commission fell 
to 4 in 1990, and Commission-conducted depositions 
became non-existent. 

i Solution: The mcad adopted new regulations that allow for 
hearings and depositions to be recorded electronically on 
cassette tapes. In Fiscal Year 1992, the mcad conducted 
over 40 hearings and for the first time in years. 
Commission counsel have held depositions in cases they 
were preparing for hearing. 

'Problem: Public Accommodations cases were languishing 
without any attention from investigators because employ- 
iment and housing cases were (rightly so) given higher 
I priority. After the passage of time, public accommodations 
cases were becoming almost impossible to investigate. 
Solution: Fact-finding conferences on the backlogged public 
accommodations cases have been convened for Saturdays. 



Both the Complainant and the Respondent are present 
to give their side of the story to the Investigating 
Commissioner who then makes a case determination 
on the spot. Through this process, the backlog of public 
accommodations cases that stretched back to 1984 has 
been eliminated. 

Much work remains to be done, but we have created 
a problem-solving spirit within the agency that will ulti- 
mately result in the elimination of the agency's backlog. 
We have changed the rules of the game so that we no 
longer see Complainants and Respondents as our antago- 
nists, but rather as our customers. 

As Chairman, I am constantly evaluating and re-evalu- 
ating the way the Commission does business, with an eye 
toward greater efficiency and increased efi^ectiveness. We 
need to re-think not our mission but our methodology, for 
ultimately the mcad must innovate and adapt if it is to 
remain a viable civil rights enforcement agency. 




July 1992 



3 



FILING A COMPLAINT 



An individual who wishes to file a complaint should 
contact the nearest mcad office to meet with an 
investigator and give a summary of the specific acts 
of alleged unlawful discrimination, including: the dates on 
which the alleged discriminatory acts occurred; a list of the 
names, titles, business addresses, and telephone numbers of 
persons charged with committing unlawful discrimination; 
names of witnesses, if any; any supporting documentation, 
such as memos, notices, leases, and comparative data; 
details oi any financial and or emotional losses suffered as 
a result of the alleged unlawful discrimination. 

If the complaint falls within the Commission's jurisdic- 
tion, the investigator drafts a formal complaint based on 
this information provided by the Complainant. The com- 
plaint is then mailed to the Respondent (individual or 
organization) charged with committing the discriminatory 
act, who is asked to respond to the allegations. 

Investigation 

Depending upon the Respondent's answer to the com- 
plaint, the investigator may advise whether there is a 
reasonable basis for settlement. A Settlement Conference 
may then be convened with both the Complainant and 
the Respondent. Many cases are closed in this way. 

If the case is not settled at this stage, the investigator 
begins further investigation using various means, including 
interrogatories and document requests. The investigator 
may convene a Fact-Finding Conference at which the 
Complainant and Respondent and appropriate witnesses 
are present. 

Probable Cause Determination 

Depending upon the information obtained during the 
investigative process, the Investigating Commissioner 
makes a finding of either Probable Cause or Lack of 
Probable Cause. 

If Probable Cause is found, the Complainant and the 
Respondent may elect an administrative public hearing or 
a judicial determination of the case in state court. If neither 
party elects to go to state court, the Complainant can 
retain either private counsel or be represented by one 
of the Commission's staff attorneys in further attempts 
at conciliation. 



If a Lack of Probable Cause determination is made, the \ 
Complainant may appeal the finding by filing a request with ' 
the Commission within ten days of the initial determination. | 

Public Hearing 

If further attempts at conciliation fail, the Commission 
convenes a Public Hearing at which one of the three '| 
Commissioners presides. The Complainant and the ' 
Respondent, or their representatives, present their cases at 
the hearing. Then the presiding Commissioner enters an 
order based on the facts presented at the hearing. Both the 
Complainant and the Respondent have the right to appeal 
the decision to the full Commission and then to Superior 
Court on the basis of the record established at the 
Commission proceedings. j 




Public Hearings 

Few things are more important in carrying out 
the mission of the mcad than conducting Public 
Hearings. In recent years, the number of hearings 
conducted had fallen dramatically. In 1992, the 
Commission made a concerted effort to reverse this 
trend and held close to 40 hearings in FY 1992. 
During the coming fiscal year, the Commission's goal 
is to conduct more public hearings than all those that 
were conducted in the five years from 1987 to 1991. 
The credible threat of a Public Hearing continues 
to be critical to upholding the promise of the 
Commonwealth's civil rights laws. 



VOLUNTARY SETTLEMENT 




henever possible, the Commission attempts to 
voluntarily settle complaints of discrimination 
that have been filed at the mcad. In fact, in some 



instances, statutory law requires that the Commission 
attempt to settle a case. 

Settlement is a negotiating process whereby both parties 
involved in a case are able to agree to a mutually beneficial 
resolution of the complaint of discrimination. In some 
instances, settlement is not appropriate. Frivolous com- 
plaints that have no basis should be dismissed for lack of 
probable cause and egregious cases of discrimination 
should be prosecuted to the fullest extent and sent to a 
public hearing. However, in many cases, settlement may 
be advantageous for all parties concerned. 

With some complaints settlement may lead to the 
Complainant getting their old job back; it may involve the 
employer writing a neutral letter of reference; sometimes, 
it will result in the Complainant receiving a cash payment. 
In all cases it means that the person who filed the complaint 
with the MCAD will withdraw it in exchange for something 
in return from the Respondent. The result is that the case 
takes less time to resolve than if it had gone to a public 
hearing, and both sides spend less on legal fees. 

We have identified three critical opportunities for 
settlement in the life of a case at the mcad. Of course, 
settlement can occur at any time, but after careful observa- 
tion, these three junctures present the best opportunity for 
fruitful negotiation. 

Case Intake 

One of the best times to attempt voluntary resolution 
of a complaint is right after the case is filed. At this stage 
of an investigation, back pay damages are usually small and 
both sides have not dug into their positions. Within 45 
days of case intake, mcad investigators bring both the 
Complainant and Respondent together and conduct a 
Fact-finding Conference at the offices of the Commission. 
In addition to gathering information relevant to a com- 
plaint, investigators are required to use this as a forum for 
settling the case. Just over 1 0% of all the cases that are 
resolved at the mcad are resolved at this stage. 

The Commission is focusing on improving this settle- 
ment rate by training the investigative staff, and helping 
them to improve their negotiating skills. Last fall, all of the 
Commission's investigators participated in a day long 
training session on negotiating, and each was presented 
with a copy of Roger Fisher's Getting to Yes. In addition, 



the investigator who was able to negotiate the most settle- 
ments this year was rewarded with a round trip to the 
national conference of civil rights workers in Nashville, 
Tennessee. 

After Determination 

Once a Commissioner has made a probable cause finding 
in a case, he or she will convene a Conciliation Conference 
of the Complainant and the Respondent at the Commission. 
Settlement is likely at this point because both sides are rep- 
resented by counsel, and attorneys are usually helpful in 
pointing out to their clients the benefits of settling a com- 
plaint voluntarily. Also, once a probable cause finding is 
issued. Respondents take cases much more seriously and 
engage in good faith negotiating. The Commission's 
revised rules of procedure now provide that within 6-8 
weeks of issuing a probable cause determination, a 
Commissioner will automatically schedule one of these 
conferences. 

Roughly one third of all cases in which probable cause 
is found will be successfully conciliated at this stage of the 
process. In cases where a negotiated compromise is not 
possible, the Investigating Commissioner will certify the 
case for public hearing. 

Before Public Hearing 

After a 6-month period for discovery, both parties are 
brought together one final time prior to public hearing. 
This Pre-Hearing Conference is held to organize the evi- 
dence in preparation for hearing and also to provide the 
parties with one last formal opportunity for settlement. 

The likelihood of settlement at this stage is increased 
by the fact that, afi:er discovery, both Complainant and 
Respondent are aware of the relative strengths and weak- 
nesses of their respective cases. Rather than risk the 
possibility of losing completely at a public hearing (and 
facing the certainty of legal fees that can easily exceed 
$20,000) one side or the other may soft:en previously held 
negotiating positions. Lawyers ofi:en call this phenomenon 
"settling on the Court House steps." 

At this stage in the life of a case, another third of all 
cases in which probable cause has been found will success- 
fully settle. Because so much time has passed before a case 
gets to this point, back pay damages have increased, and 
cases settled at this point usually involve settlement amounts 
ranging from $50,000 to $100,000. The remaining third 
of the cases that have not settled by this time will go on to 
a public hearing. 



5 





1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 19 



In 1982, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts funded 
the MCAD in the amount of $ 1,005,005. In 1992, state 
funding had risen to $1,052,824, an increase of only 
$47,819. During this same period, the number of com- 
plaints filed at the Commission has increased more than 
50 percent. This underfiinding of the Commission has 
posed great challenges. 

One of the ways the mcad has responded to this chal- 
lenge has been* to seek funds from the federal government. 
These fiinds come from the Federal Department of 
Housing and Urban Development (hud) and the Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission (eeoc), and are 
predicated on the number of investigations and case clo- 
sures the MCAD achieves each year. In spite of the number 
of complaints under investigation and case closures in the 



past year, federal funding is lower than it was a decade ago. 
In 1982, it was $989,463. In 1992, the mcad received fed- 
eral funding only in the amount of $886,300 

Thus, the Commission has had to turn to private 
resources, both financial and in-kind, to supplement these 
appropriations. It has applied for grants from private foun- 
dations, such as the Ford Foundation. It has recruited 
volunteers to assist with the backlog created by the reduc- 
tion in staff This summer, 80 interns have been assisting 
in the investigation and closure of backlogged cases. 
Volunteers across the state are being trained to take com- 
plaints at locations outside the mcad offices, and the 
Commission has asked that members of the legal commu- 
nity volunteer to represent Complainants whose cases are 
going to Public Hearing. 



6 



CASELOAD ANALYSIS 




Cases Filed 

As the result of screening cases to make sure the 
MCAD had jurisdiction before a case was docketed, 
the number of cases filed this year declined slightly. 
Last year, there were 3,456 cases filed; this year, 3211. 




Cases Resolved 

An all time record number of complaints was resolved 
by the mcad in FY 1992. The 3,440 complaints 
resolved is one third higher than the number of cases 
resolved last year. 



Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination Fiscal Year 1992 Budget 



Funding 




Expenses 




State Administration 


$1,052,824 


Personnel 


$1,325,669 


State Retained Revenue 





Contract Personnel 


178,000 


State Welfare Contract 





Other Personnel Cost 


180,204 


Subtotal State Funding 


1,052,824 


Office Rent 


24,000 


Federal HUD Title VI 1 1 


136,000 


Telephone 


47,251 


Federal HUD FHIP Grant 1 





Equipment Maintenance 


40,000 


Federal HUD FHIP Grant 1 1 


72,300 


Office Supplies 


114,000 


Federal Equal Employment Contract 


678,000 


Travel 


6,000 


Subtotal Federal Funding 


886,300 


Postage 


24,000 


Total Commission Funding 


$1,939,124 


Total Expenses 


$1,939,124 



z 



CASELOAD ANALYSIS 



• 7000 



,985 




Case Inventory 

The number of open cases at the Commission reached 
a record 6500 during FY 1991. The backlog was the 
predictable result of several years of a general increase 
in the number of filings and the decrease in staff and 
resources. However, because of the Commissions 
increased efficiency in resolving cases, the case inven- 
tory dropped for the first time in over a decade. 




Monetary Awards 

During the last fiscal year, the Commission began 
to re-emphasize voluntary settlement as an alternative 
to having a case formally work its way through the 
Commission. The result is a "win-win " situation for 
Complainants and Respondents alike. As a result of 
voluntary settlements in FY 1992, the Commission 
was able to secure over $750,000 in settlement pay- 
ments to Complainants — over twice as much as the 
year before. 




Employment 



Housing 



Public Accomodations 



Education 



Complaint by Type 

The number of complaints filed at the mcad varies 
directly with the ups and downs in the business 
cycle. As the economy in Massachusetts has wors- 
ened, rising unemployment, increases in the 
amount of time it takes to find employment, 
and a sluggish housing market have affected 
the types of cases being filed at the mcad. 
With every new round of layoffs, the mcad 
receives a spate of claims of employment 
discrimination. Employment cases now consti- 
tute 86% of the claims filed. Conversely, the 
weak housing market seems to have resulted 
in a decline in the number of housing 
discrimination complaints. 



8 



CASELOAD ANALYSIS 





Complaints by Protected Class 

While there has been a trend in recent years toward an increase 
in age and disability discrimination complaints, this year the 
percent of all the protected classes filing complaints gener- 
ally has stabilized. There has been, however, some increase 
in the filing of sexual orientation and sexual harassment 
complaints. This increase in the latter may be due to 
recent media attention on the issue of sexual harrassment 
during the Clarence Thomas hearings. 

■ Sex 21% ■ National Origin 14% Race 21% ■ Children 2% M Welfare 4% 

■ Age 16% ike Disability 16% ■ Sexual Orientation 2% ■ Religion 2% Marital Statui 1% 



■350 




Probable Cause Findings 

The number of complaints where probable cause has 
been found has risen dramatically over the last decade. 
During the last year it has doubled. This indicates 
that not only are more cases being closed, but more 
people are being served. 




2000 
1800 
1600 

1400 

1200 

1000 



400 



20o 



Case Backlog 

The Commission's "backlog" of cases has been 
defined as all of those cases that have been pending 
at the MCAD for four years or longer. Eliminating 
this case backlog is the agency's highest priority, and 
a concerted effort is now underway to resolve the 
Commission's oldest cases. In September 1991, 
the Commission created a Special Investigative Unit 
charged with the task of resolving these cases. By the 
end of this fiscal year, the Commission is striving 
to resolve any case older than four years. 



9 



HISTORY AND MISSION 



Six years before the Civil War in 1855, the 
Commonwealth of Massachusetts enacted laws for- 
bidding discrimination in public education and 
public accommodations. It was one of the first states to do 
so. Regardless of such laws, discrimination in the workplace 
was legal and commonly practiced in the state at the time. 

It was not until the creation of the Fair Employment 
Practices Commission in 1946 that the Commonwealth 
attempted to address this problem. The primary purpose 
of the agency was to enforce civil rights legislation. The 
Commission's name was changed to the Massachusetts 
Commission Against Discrimination (mcad) in 1950. 
During the 1960's and the 1970s the mcad grew substan- 
tially. It assumed increasing responsibility because of 
jurisdictional changes in new state and federal laws. The 
four part-time Commissioners became three full-time 
Commissioners.The mcad's budget and staff increased 
steadily until the mid I980's, when budget restrictions 
forced cutbacks. In spite of the cutbacks, the mcad's work- 
load has continued to expand. 

The mcad's goal is full compliance with civil rights laws 
and regulations. The Commission has the power to inves- 
tigate and decide cases of discrimination in the areas of 
employment, housing, public accommodation, credit, ser- 
vices, and education. In addition to handling complaints, 
the Commission promulgates rules and regulations; moni- 
tors and assists businesses and government in their efforts 
to comply with civil rights laws; sponsors educational pro- 
grams for law enforcement officials responsible for civil 
rights enforcement; and actively promotes broad public 
understanding of human rights issues. 

The MCAD addresses discrimination on the basis of: 



race 

age 

color 

marital status 
religious creed 
persons with children 
national origin 



disability 
ancestry 

receipt of public assistance 
sex 

military/ veteran status 
sexual orientation 
criminal record 



Executive Order 227 charges the mcad with additional 
responsibilities, including advising the Governor's Cabinet 
Officers concerning the policy and practices of the 
Commonwealth's affirmative action mandates. This advice 
consists of reviewing the applications of cities and towns 
for public funds to ensure equality of opportunity for 
racial and ethnic minorities, women, and people with dis- 
abilities. In addition, the Commission is responsible for 
monitoring the State's contract compliance program which 
requires recipients of discretionary state funding to imple- 
ment and enforce programs that guarantee equality of 
opportunity for minorities and women. 

The MCAD carries out its anti-discrimination and affir- 
mative action mandates by: 

H receiving and processing complaints of discrimination 
brought by individuals and organizations; 

■ educating the public through training programs, public 
speaking engagements, media campaigns and participation 
in groups supporting human rights; 

■ reviewing the activities of Massachusetts municipalities 
in order to assess and encourage compliance with fair prac- 
tices and to ensure that no public funds are spent in a 
discriminatory manner or in support of discriminatory 
practices; 

H initiating research activities and legal suits which may 
advance the rights of Massachusetts citizens. 

During the past decade, Massachusetts has continued to 
lead the nation in the area of civil rights. Under the state's 
civil rights laws of 1983, persons with disabilities received 
protection, nearly a full decade before passage of the 
national Americans with Disabilities Act. When aids was 
classified as a disability, people with aids were protected 
from discrimination under the 1983 law. In 1989, the 
Commonwealth enacted one of the country's first state 
wide sexual orientation laws, guaranteeing civil rights pro- 
tections to lesbians and gay men in housing, employment, 
public accommodations and credit. 



10 



ORGANIZATION OF MCAD 



Three Commissioners head the mcad. They are 
responsible for setting policy for the mcad, determin- 
ing if probable cause exists to believe discrimination 
has occurred in a case, and hearing cases. Each of the three 
has primary responsibility for a particular region of the 
state: one is appointed from the western part of the state 



The Program and Administrative Division is divided into three 
areas: The Systematic Fair Housing Testing and Enforcement 
Program, the Civil Rights Review Unit, and the Control 
Unit. 

H The Systematic Fair Housing Testing and Enforcement 



, . , > n • 1 1 1 • Program aims to combat large-scale, mstitutionalized hous- 

and serves m the MCAD s Sprmgheld orrice; another carries . °, i 

., .,. r , 1 1 ing discrimination in Massachusetts through two major 

program initiatives: 1) a Testing Program, which investi- 
gates housing providers in particular geographic areas for 
compliance with fair housing laws; and 2) an Enforcement 
Program, which brings housing discrimination complaints 
against those agencies found to discriminate. 

I The Civil Rights Review Unit is the channel through 
which grant recipients achieve compliance with prevailing 
requirements. The Unit has two primary functions: 1) it 
oversees compliance of municipal governments 
and other arms of government with state affirma- 
tive action guidelines; 2) it monitors the state's 
contract compliance program, which 
requires recipients of discre- 



special responsibility for southeastern Massachusetts; the 
third oversees the administration of the Boston area. Three 
major divisions come under the supervision of the 
Commissioners. These are the Legal Division, the Division 
of Investigations, and the Program and Administration 
Division. 

The Legal Division serves as in-house counsel to the 
Commission. Duties of the legal staff are varied, and 
include advising investigators on complex 
investigations, reviewing investigative recom- 
mendations, attempting conciliation following 
a Probable Cause finding, and prosecuting 
cases in public hearings when con- 
ciliation fails. Commission 
attorneys also represent the 
MCAD in court. 



Commissioners' 
Office 




The Division of Investigations 

receives and investigates 
complaints concerning dis- 
crimination in education, employment, private and public 
housing, credit, and public accommodations. In its investi- 
gations, the Division uses fact-finding conferences, 
interrogatories, personal interviews, and on-site visits to 
search out information concerning allegations of discrimi- 
nation. During the investigation stage, the Division may 
provide an invaluable service to both the complainant and 
the respondent by allowing them to air their concerns and 
helping to defuse the situation. Investigators strive to 
improve conditions and practices in the work place and to 
help the parties arrive at a mutually satisfactory resolution 
without having to go to a public hearing. 



Division of 
Investigations 



Program & 
Administration 
Division 



tionary state fiinding to 
implement and enforce pro- 
grams that guarantee equality 
of opportunity for minorities 
and women. 

I The Control Unit is responsible for the financial and 
administrative functions of the mcad. As the planning and 
monitoring arm of the Commission, the Control Unit 
provides information and recommendations on manage- 
ment of the agency's case load. The Control Unit develops 
and manages the Commission's budget, which includes 
three yearly contracts with the mcad's federal counterparts, 
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (eeoc) 
and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 
Development (hud). In addition, the Unit oversees the 
administrative support functions of the Commission. 



11 



DECISIONS 1992 



Decisions of a Single Commissioner for ttie Year 1991-92 

All decisions from the Commission are published in the Massachusetts Discrimination Law Reporter {mdlr) . In addition to 
the MCAD decisions, the mdlr publishes the Supreme Judicial Court decisions involving private parties bringing suit 
under m.g.l. c. 151(b). The mdlr is published monthly by the New England Legal Publishers. 



■ Godino v International Food Services 

Discrimination on the basis oi sex and retalia- 
tion. Complainant originally alleged that she 
had been sexually harassed by her employer. 
She later amended her complaint to include 
retaliatory discharge when she was terminated 
from her position with the Respondent after 
filing her original complaint with the mcad. 
Commissioner Alex Rodriguez dismissed the 
complaint when he found that the alleged 
harassing conduct of the employer was not 
offensive to the Complainant and that the 
Respondent had legitimate, nondiscrimina- 
tor}', business reasons for dismissing the 
Complainant from her position in the com- 
pany. 

■ Poellnitz v Wackenhut Corporation 

Discrimination on the basis of race and color. 
Complainant, who is black, alleged that the 
Respondent failed to hire him for the position 
of Chief Security officer because of his race 
and color. Commissioner Alex Rodriguez dis- 
missed the complaint when the Respondent 
articulated the legitimate, nondiscriminatory 
reason of insufficient information in its deci- 
sion not to hire the Complainant. 

■ Brooks V City of Boston Penal Department 

Discrimination on the basis of race and color. 
Complainant, who was a black corrections 
officer at Deer Island, filed a complaint with 
the MCAD alleging that he had been discrimi- 
nated against on the basis of race and color 
after an incident in which he and a white offi- 
cer had to subdue two inmates. At the close of 
Respondent's hearing concerning the incident, 
the Complainant was reprimanded for using 
excessive force and was discharged. In contrast, 
the white officer was commended for his 
behavior and retained his position. 
Commissioner Alex Rodriguez found that 
there was unlawful discrimination on the basis 
of race and color. He found that Respondent's 
termination of the Complainant for the articu- 
lated reason of his alleged use of excessive force 
was pretextual and that the hearing regarding 
the incident with the inmates had been little 
more than a sham. He ordered that the 
Respondent reinstate the Complainant, pay 



him damages in the amount of $86,828.92, 
and significantly, conduct a training program 
in human relations and the anti-discrimination 
provisions of Title VI 1 of the Civil Rights Act 
of 1964 and m.g.l. c.151(b). 

■ Carter v Boston Public Schools 

Discrimination on the basis of handicap. 
Complainant filed a complaint with the mcad 
alleging that she had been discriminated 
against on the basis of a handicap (epilepsy) 
when she was terminated from her position as 
a school lunch monitor with the Respondent. 
Commissioner Alex Rodriguez found that 
there was unlawful discrimination based on a 
handicap and that the Complainant posed no 
risk of harm to herself and others because of 
her disability. Further, he found that the 
Respondent had failed to make reasonable 
accommodations for the Complainant's dis- 
ability. The Commissioner awarded damages 
in the amount of $26,668 for lost wages, bene- 
fits and emotional distress. 

■ Donahue v City of Springfield Parks 
and Recreation Department 

Discrimination on the basis of handicap. 
Complainant alleged that the Respondent had 
denied him a promotion to temporary fore- 
man of an ice rink because of his disability. He 
wears a prosthesis, his right leg having been 
amputated to the knee. Commissioner Alex 
Rodriguez found that there was unlawful dis- 
crimination on the basis of handicap in the 
failure to promote the Complainant and that 
the Respondent's articulated reasons that 
Complainant's physical handicap presented a 
risk of injury to himself were without any basis 
in fact. The Commissioner ordered the 
Respondent to pay damages in the amount of 
$20,267.96 for back pay and emotional dis- 
tress. 

■ Freeman V Town of 
Duxbury Fire Department 

Discrimination on the basis of handicap. 
Complainant alleged that he had been termi- 
nated from his position as a fire fighter with 
Respondent after he suffered a severe depres- 
sion, which he claimed was severe enough to 



constitute a handicap under m.g.l. c.151(b). 
Respondent claimed that Complainant suf- 
fered no handicap when he was terminated 
and that he had been unable to provide 
enough medical assurance that he posed no 
risk to himself or others. For the first time at 
the Commission, Commissioner Frederick 
Hurst found that mental illness could be a 
handicap and that Complainant had been 
wrongfully terminated from his job because 
of psychological difficulties. He found that in 
reaching its decision, the town of Duxbury 
had relied upon unfounded medical testimony 
and ignored other statements which indicated 
that the Complainant could continue in his 
job without posing any risk to himself or oth- 
ers. The Commissioner ordered that the 
Complainant be reinstated to his position as 
firefighter and awarded damages in the 
amount of $189,21 1.00 for back pay and 
emotional distress. Respondent appealed the 
decision to the Full Commission. The Full 
Commission has remanded the case back to 
the Single Commissioner. 

■ Chapman et al v Eastern 
Electronics Supply Company 

Discrimination in housing on the basis of chil- 
dren. Complainant and his family sought to 
rent housing from the Respondent and were 
refused. Complainant believed this was 
because of his two children. Commissioner 
Michael Duffy found that this refusal to rent 
constituted unlawful discrimination under 
M.G.L. c. 15 1(b) because the Respondents' 
articulated concern for the children's safety 
was not a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason 
for the refusal .The Commissioner awarded 
damages in the amount of $2500 for emo- 
tional distress. 

■ Shea V Shaw 

Discrimination in housing on the basis of chil- 
dren. Complainant sought housing from the 
Respondent and was refused. She alleged 
unlawful discrimination because of her teen- 
aged daughter in the refusal. Commissioner 
Michael Duffy found that there was no unlaw- 
fiil discrimination here, as the house in question 
was a two family dwelling unit, one unit of 



12 



DECISIONS 1992 



which was owner-occupied. As such it was 
exempt from the discrimination provisions of 
M.G.L. c. 1 5 1 (b) and the mcad lacked jurisdic- 
tion over the case. Accordingly, the 
Commissioner dismissed the complaint. 

■ Low V Massachusetts Board of Trustees / 
of State Colleges, et al 

Discrimination on the basis of sex. Complainant, 
a college professor, alleged that her employer, 
Framingham State College, had discriminated 
against her because she received less pay than 
her male colleagues. The United States 
District Court decided in her favor. However, 
she complained that she had not been made 
whole by the court order and reactivated her 
complaint with the mcad for an additional 
award of back pay. Commissioner Michael 
Duffy found that the Complainant was enti- 
tled to back pay for the five years not covered 
by the court order, because the mcad was not 
bound by the same statute of limitations on 
Equal Pay claims as was the court. Accordingly, 
the Commissioner ordered that the Complainant 
receive back pay in the amount of $22,684.28. 

■ Wheeler v Lorenzo Pitts, Inc. 

Discrimination on the basis of handicap. 
Complainant alleged that he was fired from his 
job because of his handicap which he claimed 
was an addiction to cocaine. Respondent 
agreed that it had fired Complainant because 
of his addiction but disputed that the addic- 
tion was a handicap. In this case of first 
impression. Commissioner Michael Duffy 
agreed with the Respondent and found that 
the Complainant had failed to establish that he 
was in any way handicapped within the statute 
M.G.L. c. 15 1(b). Accordingly, he dismissed the 
complaint. This decision was consistent with 
federal law which does not protect the active 
use of controlled substances as a handicap. In 
addition, the Commissioner stated that to 
allow such use as a handicap would send a 
confusing and contradictory message to the 
public concerning the use of illegal drugs. 

■ Barrett v Commonwealth of y 
Massachusetts, Department 

of Mental Health, Fernald School 

Discrimination on the basis of age. 
Complainant, a 70-year-old woman, alleged 
that she was denied flex time benefits and 
harassed in the workplace because of her age. 
Commissioner Frederick Hurst dismissed the 
complaint when the Complainant failed to 
establish a prima facie case. The Commissioner 



found that she was not treated differently from 
anyone else regarding flex-time benefits, and 
that the alleged harassment was directed at 
Complainant's work performance and not 
her age. 

■ Gllmcher v Boston Health and Swim Club 

Discrimination on the basis of sex. 
Complainant alleged that she had been dis- 
criminated against and sexually harassed by a 
co-worker after she rejected his advances. 
Commissioner Frederick Hurst found that 
there was not enough evidence to show that 
what were simply interpersonal difficulties in 
the workplace rose to the level of sexual harass- 
ment or discrimination. Accordingly, he 
dismissed the complaint. 

■ Rideoutv Kane's Place 

Discrimination on the basis of sexual harass- 
ment. Complainant filed a complaint with the 
MCAD alleging discrimination on the basis of 
sexual harassment. Respondent defaulted but 
Commissioner Frederick Hurst found at the 
Public Hearing that the Complainant had 
made a prima facie case. He found that the 
Respondent had created a sexually harassing 
environment so pervasive that the Complainant 
had been unlawfully discriminated against. He 
awarded damages in the amount of $8,174.00 
in lost wages and medical expenses and 
$25,000 for emotional distress. 

■ Yetton V Jack Madden Ford Sales 

Discrimination on the basis of age. 
Complainant, a fiffy-one year-old male applied 
for credit when purchasing a new car and was 
refiised. He alleged that Respondent had dis- 
criminated against him on the basis of his age. 
Commissioner Frederick Hurst found that the 
Respondent's refusal to extend credit was 
based on the Complainant's poor credit his- 
tory and not his age. Accordingly, the 
Commissioner dismissed the complaint. 

■ Cochran v. Commonwealth of «/ 
Massachusetts Department of Correction 

Discrimination on the basis of handicap. 
Complainant who had cerebral palsy was hired 
by the Respondent to be a corrections officer 
at Bridgewater State Hospital. He successfully 
performed his duties for eight months, after 
which he was terminated. Commissioner 
Frederick Hurst found that the Respondent 
had unlawfully discriminated against the 
Complainant on the basis of handicap when 
Respondent determined that Complainant was 



disqualified under Medical Guidelines from a 
public safety position. Since the Commission 
had required that these Guidelines be changed 
in a previous decision, the Commissioner dis- 
counted their un-amended use here. He found 
that the Complainant posed no risk of injury 
to himself or others and ordered that he be 
reinstated as corrections officer at Bridgewater 
State Hospital. He also awarded damages in 
the amount of $138,683.00 in lost pay and 
$50,000 for emotional distress. 

■ Monahan v Commonwealth 

of Massachusetts, Department ^ 
of Mental Retardation 

Discrimination on the basis of age and retalia- 
tion. Complainant filed a complaint with the 
MCAD alleging that he had been discriminated 
against because of age by the dmh. In January 
1989, he amended his complaint to include the 
dmr as Respondent. In March 1989, he further 
amended the complaint to include the charge 
of retaliation. Probable cause was found con- 
cerning the claim of age discrimination against 
the dmh and the claim of retaliation against 
the dmr. Complainant settled with the dmh 
prior to the hearing so the only remaining 
issue was the charge of retaliation against the 
DMR. Hearing Officer Shirley Lee dismissed 
the complaint of retaliation charges since the 
alleged misconduct, a request that the 
Complainant postpone vacation time, a letter 
of reprimand, and a request to verify the use of 
sick time all occurred before the Respondent 
was made a party to the complaint. 

■ Grant v Harrison Supply Company 

Discrimination on the basis of race and color. 
Complainant alleged that he was fired from his 
job because of his race and color. Commissioner 
Michael Duffy found that the Complainant 
was fired after he failed to prevent thefts of 
company property from occurring at 
Respondent's place of business and not 
because of his race or color. Thus, the 
Commissioner dismissed the complaint. 

■ Bradley v Sciaba Construction Company 

Discrimination on the basis of race and color. 
Complainant who is black worked as a con- 
struction worker for Respondent. After one 
month, he was laid off. He alleged that he was 
laid of? on the basis of his race and color and 
that Respondent had hired three white men 
with the same skills after they had fired him. 
Commissioner Michael Duffy found that these 
three white men had already been in 



DECISIONS 1992 



Respondent's employ at another worksite, 
before Complainant was even hired, and that 
they possessed skills for the job which the 
Complainant did not. Since the Complainant 
failed to establish a pritha facieca.se of discrim- 
ination, the Commissioner dismissed the 
complaint. 

■ Steele v Quincy Public Schools 

Discrimination on the basis of sex. 
Complainant was laid off from her job as a 
vocational high school teacher and alleged that 
the reason for the lay off was sex discrimina- 
tion. Respondent argued that declining 
enrollment in Complainant's traditionally 
female program was the reason for the layoff. 
Complainant believed that the declining 
enrollment had been deliberately engineered 
by the administration. Commissioner Michael 
Duffy found no evidence to support the 
Complainant's claims. He found no evidence 
that Complainant had been treated differently 
from males who were similarly situated or that 
the decline in enrollment in the program had 
been encouraged by the administration. He 
found that the layoff had occurred as the result 
of the teacher's contract and sound educa- 
tional policies. Accordingly, he dismissed the 
complaint. 

■ Thompson v PInder 

Discrimination in housing on the basis of a 
housing subsidy. Complainant sought to have 
her landlords (Respondents) accept her housing 
subsidy as payment for rent. The Respondents 
refused and the Complainant was forced to 
move out of the apartment before her subsidy 
certificate expired. Commissioner Michael 
Duffy found that the Respondents could artic- 
ulate no legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason 
for their refusal to accept the certificates and 
thus found for the Complainant. He ordered 
that the Respondents pay $1000 plus interest 
to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as a 
civil penalty. 

■ Ryan v Springfield Housing Authority 

Discrimination on the basis of handicap. 
Complainant alleged a physical intolerance to 
cigarette smoke as a handicap and was dis- 
missed from her job eleven days after she was 
hired. She claimed that her employer had 
failed to make reasonable accommodations for 



her handicap and that she was fired because of 
her handicap. Since the Complainant could 
not prove that her intolerance for cigarette 
smoke was a handicap within the statute 
M.G.L. c.15I(b) Section 1(16), she failed to 
establish a prima facie case of discrimination. 
Accordingly, Commissioner Michael Duff)' 
dismissed the complaint. 

■ Conlon V James River Curtis Paper 
Company, Inc. 

Discrimination on the basis of handicap. 
Complainant claimed an addiction to mari- 
juana as a handicap and that he was 
wrongfully terminated from his job on the 
basis of that handicap. He claimed that the 
Respondent employer had not made reason- 
able accommodations to his handicap when it 
failed to monitor his participation in coun- 
selling and subsequently fired him when he 
failed to pass a second drug test. Relying on 
the precedent in Wheeler v Lorenzo Pitts, Inc. 
decided earlier in the year. Commissioner 
Michael Duffy ruled that the Complainant's 
addiction to an illegal drug was not a pro- 
tected activity under the Civil Rights Laws. 
Accordingly, he granted Respondent's motion 
to dismiss. 

■ Carlton v Worcester School 
Department et al 

Discrimination on the basis of race and color. 
Complainant alleged that she had been 
harassed and denied a leave of absence from 
her job as a clerk and stenographer with 
Respondent employer on the basis of her race 
and color. Respondent claimed that leaves of 
absence were almost always routinely denied. 
Commissioner Michael Duffy found that this 
was so and that the Complainant could not 
establish a prima facie case of harassment and 
discrimination on the basis of race and color. 
There was no evidence that she was ever 
harassed and she could not prove that she was 
treated differently from similarly situated non- 
minority employees. Accordingly, the 
Commissioner dismissed the complaint. 

■ Eldred v Consolidated Freightways, Inc 

Discrimination on the basis of retaliation. 
Complainant filed a claim with the Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission 
against the Respondent employer on the basis 



that she was paid less than her similarly situ- 
ated male colleagues. Seven years after she filed 
the complaint, she was laid off during a com- 
pany wide reduction of the work force. 
Complainant then filed a complaint with the 
MCAD stating that the lay off was retaliation for 
the earlier filing. Commissioner Michael 
Duffy found that the Complainant failed to 
establish a prima facie case of retaliation and 
that one could not infer from the length of 
time between the filing of the complaint at the 
KEOC and the intervening events that the lay 
off was retaliation for the eeoc filing. Thus, 
the Commissioner dismissed the complaint. 

■ Ntapalis v Halem & Schrader, PC. 

Discrimination on the basis of sex. 
Complainant, a 10 % part owner and practi- 
tioner in a dental practice alleged unlawful 
discrimination on the basis of sex when her 
employers encouraged her to remain single, 
not to get married, and not to have children. 
In addition, she alleged that she was barred 
from having an outside practice while another 
male employee practitioner was permitted to 
have a practice of his own. Commissioner 
Michael Duffy found that the Complainant 
could not prove that the Respondent had a 
bias in favor of single employees. Further, he 
found that Complainant could not establish a 
case of disparate treatment relative to the male 
employee, as he already had a dental practice 
before he entered the employ of the Respondent 
and thus was not similarly situated to the 
Complainant. Accordingly, the Commissioner 
dismissed the complaint. 

■ Clark V O'Connor 

Discrimination in housing on the basis of a 
housing subsidy. Complainant charged that 
Respondent refused to rent an apartment to 
her on the basis of her source of income, that 
is, a Section 8 housing subsidy. Commissioner 
Michael Duffy found that the assertion of the 
Respondent that she did not want to rent to 
Complainant because the unit in question 
would not pass inspection was not sufficient to 
rebut the Complainant's prima facie case of 
discrimination. Thus, the Commissioner 
found in favor of the Complainant and awarded 
her $1500 in emotional distress damages. 



14 



DECISIONS 1992 



Cases Settled 

There were 28 cases settled during the year 
1991-1992 after being certified to a Public 
Hearing. Summaries of 18 of these cases follow. 

■ Martin v DeAngelo's Sub Shop 

Discrimination on the basis of handicap. 
Complainant who worked at Respondent 
employer from August 1984 until May 1985 
as a part time food service handler is a dia- 
betic. She was told in May 1985 that her job 
was terminated because the manager was afraid 
that she would be unable to handle the work 
when summer came. She believed this discharge 
was because of her illness. The Respondent 
contended that it was because of her work per- 
formance. The case was settled for $500. 

■ Millet V Digital 

Discrimination on the basis of handicap. 
Complainant contracted hepatitis B while 
working for the Respondent. He took a sick 
leave and when he returned to work, he was 
unable to perform the functions of his job. 
Respondent then encouraged him to find a 
new position within the company. He did so 
but took a number of sick days. The Respondent 
warned him in writing that if he took three 
consecutive unauthorized sick days, he would 
be fired. He took more sick days and was dis- 
charged. Complainant at first alleged that 
Respondent failed to accommodate his handi- 
cap. When there was no finding of probable 
cause in that action, he amended his com- 
plaint to add a claim of wrongful termination 
on the basis of handicap. The case was settled 
for an undisclosed amount. 

■ Haddocks v Office of Job Partnership 

Discrimination on the basis of race and color. 
Complainant was the only black who held an 
executive position in the Respondent com- 
pany.He was the only black terminated from 
his position when the company began a work 
force reduction. The company told him that 
he could have another job, but since in that 
job, he would have to move his office and be 
under the supervision of previous subordi- 
nates. Complainant left, claiming constructive 
discharge. The case was settled for an imdis- 
closed amount. 



■ Knox V AT&T 

Discrimination on the basis of handicap. 
Complainant suffered from an impaired sciatic 
nerve condition and told the Respondent 
employer that she could not do any heavy lift- 
ing or climbing of ladders on the job. The 
Respondent made no accommodations for the 
Complainant, and as a result she suffered an 
injury in 1984 which disabled her from per- 
forming her job duties. She claimed 
discrimination on the basis of her handicap. 
The Respondent claimed that she was not a 
qualified handicapped person as she was 
unable to do her job after the accident. The 
case was settled for an undisclosed amount. 

■ Duarte v Nanco Trailer Leasing Company 

Discrimination on the basis of race and color 
Complainant who is black held a probationary 
position as a truck driver with employer 
Respondent. He was terminated from his posi- 
tion with the company when it was alleged 
that he was stealing company time on his 
truck runs. Complainant alleged that since 
there were white co-workers with more warn- 
ings than he concerning time stealing , that he 
had been terminated because of his race and 
color. Respondent contended that Complainant 
was the only worker whose infractions had 
been witnessed. The case was settled for $1500. 

■Arango v Custom Deliveries 

Discrimination on the basis of race and color. 
Complainant was the only black truck driver 
at the Natick terminal of Respondent employer. 
He alleged that during his employment there, 
he was treated differently from other employ- 
ees similarly situated. He received numerous 
reprimands for procedural violations which 
he alleged were pretextuaJ for discrimination 
based on his race and color. Respondent 
argued that the reprimands were real. The 
case was settled for an undisclosed amount. 

■ Champagne v Mt. Greylock Regional 
School District 

Discrimination on the basis of age. 
Complainant who was 68 at the time of the 
complaint claimed that she was denied a posi- 
tion as a high school teacher or teaching 
assistant on the basis of her age. Respondent 
argued that they hired individuals for the posi- 
tions whom they deemed were better qualified 
than the Complainant. Originally, there was a 
Lack of Probable Cause finding in the case. 
This was changed to a Probable Cause finding 



when additional facts became evident. The 
case was settled for $10,000. 

■ Silverman v Wright Line, Inc. 

Discrimination on the basis of age and handi- 
cap. Complainant worked for Respondent 
employer for seventeen years as a salesman 
when he received a poor evaluation. A year 
later at the age of 53, he had a heart attack. 
Five months later when he returned to work, 
he was told either to take a smaller territory or 
to quit. Two days after he chose the smaller 
territory, he was discharged. He claimed the 
discharge was because of his age and illness; 
Respondent argued that it was due to poor job 
performance. The case was settled for an 
undisclosed amount. 

■ Fox V Lindsay 

Discrimination in housing on the basis of sex, 
children, and a housing subsidy. Complainant 
who had three children under the age of six 
and was a 707 rental subsidy recipient was 
refused housing by the Respondent when it 
was discovered that the unit in question con- 
tained lead paint. Respondent refused to make 
the repairs required by law and Complainant 
filed a complaint with the mcad alleging that 
she had been discriminated against on the 
basis of her sex, her children and her rental 
subsidy. There was an issue about whether or 
not there was a signed lease concerning the 
rental property. The case was settled for 
$1900. 

■Acevedo v Halton, M.D. 

Discrimination on the basis of being a recipi- 
ent of public assistance (medicaid). 
Complainant who had suffered eye problems 
from childhood had been seeing an eye doctor 
for treatment. When he no longer accepted 
medicaid payments, she began to pay him cash 
but she could not see him as often as necessary. 
She made an appointment with Respondent 
who refused to treat her unless she paid cash. 
She was unable to do so. By the time she was 
able to see a doctor after this refusal, she had 
lost the vision in her left eye. The Respondent 
argued that he insisted upon cash payment to 
discourage the Complainant from choosing 
him as a physician of second choice whom she 
did not know,in preference to the physician to 
whom she was paying cash with whom she was 
satisfied. The case was settled for $3000. 



15 



DECISIONS 1992 



■ Hennessey v Stratford, Winchester 
Management Companies 

Discrimination in housing on the basis of chil- 
dren. Complainant called Respondent to ask 
about renting an apartment. He asked if she 
had a child. When she responded that she had 
a four year old child, Respondent said that 
because of the presence of lead paint in the 
apartment, it was his policy not to rent to peo- 
ple with children under six. Respondent was 
unwilling to de-lead the place. As a result of 
this refusal. Complainant had to live in a shel- 
ter from August until October when she found 
suitable housing. The case was settled for 
$500. 

■ Delorme v Star Containers 

Discrimination on the basis of sex. 
Complainant was a female factory worker for 
Respondent for two years after which she was 
suspended and eventually terminated. She 
alleged that the discharge occurred because of 
rumors that she was having an affair with her 
male supervisor. He retained his job. The 
Respondent argued that she was suspended for 
failure to perform her duties adequately and 
then after returning to work, that she left the 
job voluntarily for a better position. Originally, 
there was a Lack of Probable Cause finding. 
This was later changed to Probable Cause. The 
case was settled for an undisclosed amount. 

■ Haley v Stratlimore Paper Company 

Discrimination on the basis of handicap. 
Complainant suffered from a lower back prob- 
lem which required an operation. After being 
out of work recovering for 20 months, he 
claimed that the Respondent employer failed 
to rehire him because of his handicap. 
Respondent argued that they did not rehire 
Complainant because he refused to obtain 
medical confirmation of his ability to perform 
the job .The case was settled for an undis- 
closed amount. 

■ Washington/Brown v Steeve 

Discrimination in housing on the basis of race 
and color. Complainants alleged that the 
Respondent refused to rent to them on the 
basis that they were an inter-racial couple. 
Respondent argued that the couple's income 
was insufficient to pay the rent required. The 
case was settled for $2400. 

■ Kolise V Springfield Industrial Center 

Discrimination on the basis of physical 
impairment. Complainant alleged that he was 
not hired by Respondent as a boiler room 



attendant because of his physical impair- 
ment: a facial birthmark. He alleged that 
the Respondent made humiliating remarks 
about the impairment after the job interview. 
Respondent argued that Complainant was not 
qualified for the job because he did not possess 
a fireman's license which was a job requirement. 
The case was settled for an undisclosed amount. 

■ Scholastico v Siegel et al 

Discrimination in housing on the basis of a 
housing subsidy. Complainant who was the 
mother of an infant son was interested in rent- 
ing an apartment owned by Respondent. 
When she said that she would use Section 8 
housing subsidy to pay the rent, Respondent 
refused to accept this on the grounds that such 
a payment was too involved. After this rejec- 
tion. Complainant had to stay in a shelter, 
where she became so concerned for the welfare 
of her child, that she suffered from anxiety 
attacks. The case was settled for $1 ,100. 

■ Owens V Massachusetts Bay / 
Transportation Authority 

Discrimination on the basis of race and color 
and retaliation. Complainant, a black man, 
had been a bus driver for the Respondent 
employer since 1984. In 1987, he was arrested 
due to a warrant for a traffic violation and 
suspended from his job. He alleged that white 
bus drivers arrested or convicted for traffic 
violations were not treated the same way. In 
addition, one day before he was arrested and 
suspended. Complainant alleged that the 
Respondent found out that he was going to 
participate in a discrimination suit filed at the 
MCAD against Respondent by a co-worker. 
The case was setded for an undisclosed amount. 

■ Pacheco v Pires 

Discrimination in housing on the basis of 
marital status. Complainant was a tenant of 
the Respondent from 1982-1989. When she 
separated from her husband and requested that 
the rental receipts be made out in her name 
because she was a recipient of AFDC, she 
alleged that the Respondent landlord told her 
that she would have to move or bring her hus- 
band back. Respondent argued that Complainant 
was chronically behind in paying the rent and 
that her children had damaged the apartment. 
The case was settled for the amount of $100 
and forgiveness of a debt of $620.50 which 
Complainant owed Respondent. 



Court decisions in which 
the IVICAD was a party 
in the year 1991-1992. 

■ Francis v MCAD 

In the decision by the single Commissioner, 
affirmed by the Full Commission, Commissioner 
Frederick A. Hurst found that the plaintiff 
here. Respondent below had discriminated 
against the Complainant Mary Lindenberg by 
denying her the opportunity to rent property 
on the basis that she received section 8 hous- 
ing subsidy. The Commissioner awarded the 
Complainant $2000 in damages. When the 
Respondent/plaintiff appealed the decision, 
the Superior Court entered a judgment for 
the MCAD by agreement. 

■ Art Cement Products Co., Inc. 
V MCAD and another 

The Superior Court upheld the findings of 
the Full Commission that the plaintiff here. 
Respondent below had discriminated against 
Lila Brady on the basis of sex. When the com- 
pany had terminated Ms. Brady because she 
had breast cancer and was to undergo a mas- 
tectomy, they had done so out of the belief 
that such an operation would render her 
unstable, and contenting that the same deci- 
sion might have been made with a man 
similarly situated. The Court upheld the judi- 
cial notice which the Commission had taken 
that in our society women's breasts are more 
significant socially and culturally than those 
of men. Thus the court found the termination 
of Ms. Brady was illegal discrimination. The 
Court further upheld the award of damages 
for emotional distress. Since the plaintiff is 
currently bankrupt, collection of the damage 
award will be difficult. 

■ City of Lowell v MCAD 

The Superior Court affirmed the full 
Commissions findings that when the plain- 
tiff here. Respondent below had told the 
Complainant that she would not be consid- 
ered for the position of assistant city clerk 
because of her gender, that they had discrimi- 
nated against the Complainant on the basis 
of sex. The Court upheld the award of damages 
for back pay and remanded back to the 
Commission for consideration the damages 
awarded for emotional distress. The plaintiff 
waived this rehearing and paid the 
Complainant the sum of $92,033.16. 



16 



DECISIONS 1992 



■ Kontsas v MCAD 

The Superior Court granted the mcad 
summary judgment in a case where from 
beginning to end the plaintiff here, Respondent 
below attempted to ignore the procedural 
requirements of the Commission. After the 
single Commissioner had found that the plain- 
tiff had discriminated against the Complainants 
on the basis of race, the plaintiff had first 
attempted to bypass the requirement that an 
appeal must go to the full Commission. When 
he had filed a late appeal, the Commission had 
denied him a hearing. The Court found that 
this denial was no abuse of the Commission's 
discretion in that all of plaintiff s actions rela- 
tive to the Commission had been the result of 
intentional behavior and not excusable 
neglect. In granting the mcad summary judg- 
ment here, the Superior Court upheld the 
integrity of the administrative process. 

■ City of Chelsea v MCAD 
and Daniel G. Carranza 

The Superior Court affirmed the decision of 
the Commission that plaintiff here. Respondent 
below had discriminated against the Complainant 
Mr. Carranza on the basis of national origin 
when it terminated his position. The Court 
upheld the award of $56,461.50 in damages. 
These included $ 1 1 ,000 which the Complainant 
had expended in taking out a mortgage so that 
he could pay for living expenses after he was 
terminated. 



■ Jay Lennad Furs v Saluta and the MCAD 

The Superior Court affirmed the decision of 
the Full Commission to award damages in 
back pay, vacation pay, and emotional distress 
when it fotmd that the plainuff here, Respondent 
below had fired the Complainant in retaliation 
for a claim of age discrimination he had filed 
with the MCAD. Complainant was 77 years old 
at the time of the claim. While there had been 
no finding of probable cause on the issue of 
age discrimination, when the plaintiff fired the 
Complainant unless he dismissed the charge, 
the Commission found and the Court 
affirmed that this was retaliation. 

■ Ramsdell v Western Massachusetts Bus 
Lines et al and MCAD 

The Superior Court affirmed the decision of 
the Full Commission dismissing the complaint 
of sex harassment, failure to promote, and 
unequal pay. The Court agreed with the 
Commission that while other women might 
have found Respondent's behavior intimidat- 
ing, insulting, degrading and offensive, the 
plaintiff did not and had even to an extent 
provoked the behavior. Relative to plaintifip s 
claim of failure to promote, the Court agreed 
with the Commission that when Respondent 
had chosen a man instead of plaintiff for a 
position, the man was better qualified. Last, in 
relation to the complaint of unequal pay, the 
Court affirmed the Commission's finding that 
the male with whom the plaintiff compared 
herself had more experience, years in the busi- 
ness, skill and a stronger customer base. 



■ Lariviere v MCAD 

The Appeals Court dismissed the appeal on 
the basis that appellant had failed to prosecute 
the case when he failed to submit a brief 
The case concerned discrimination in housing. 
In addition to the damage award of $1512.78 
appellant was ordered to pay to the original 
Complainants, the Commission ordered that 
the appellant provide notice of all properties 
he was renting, provide a written report of 
the property he rented and to whom, submit 
copies of written advertisements relative to 
rental properties, and provide a plan which 
would enumerate all criteria for rental decisions 
in the future to the mcad. As appellant is one 
of the largest property owners in Worcester, 
this order should have wide ranging effect. 

■ Baker v Winchester High School 

The Superior Court entered a judgement by 
agreement affirming the Commission's award 
of attorney's fees to the Complainant in accor- 
dance with a newly enacted statuatory 
amendment to m.g.l 151(B) which awards 
fees to the successful party. The commission 
based the award on the number of hours mul- 
tiplied by the hourly rate adjusted upward by 
an assessment of the amount of risk in the 
case. The Respondend agreed to pay the 
Complainant $95,000. 



17 



COMMISSIONERS & ADVISORY BOARD 



Commissioner Michael Duffy, Chairman 

Michael Duffy was appointed to a three year term as 
Chairman of the Commission by Governor William F. 
Weld in March 1991. Commissioner Duffy is a Phi Beta 
Kappa graduate of Trinity College, where he received a 
Bachelor's Degree in Economics. Before graduating, Duffy 
worked as a research assistant in both the Connecticut 
Legislature and the British House of Commons. In 1987, 
he earned a Master's Degree in Public Policy from Harvard 
University's Kennedy School of Government. Prior to his 
appointment to the Commission, Duffy worked for 
Congressman Christopher Shays, a Republican from 
Connecticut, and for the Massachusetts Republican Party. 

Commissioner Duffy is actively involved in the 
community. He is a member of the Boston Professional 
Alliance. He serves on the Board of Governors of the Log 
Cabin Club and is a member of the Board of Directors of 
Little Brothers-Friends of the Elderly. As Chairman of the 
Commission, he is responsible for the overall management 
of the agency. 

Commissioner Georgia Thomas Parks 

Georgia Thomas Parks was appointed to the Commission 
in January 1992. She received a Bachelor's Degree in Social 
Welfare from Central State College, a Master's Degree 
from Rutgers, and a Doctorate Degree from Howard 
University in 1983. Before coming to the Commission, 
Dr. Parks was a faculty member at Smith College, Rutgers 
University, and Howard University as well as the University 
ofNi geria at Nsuka. From 1988 to 1991, she worked 
with the Massachusetts Department of Mental Health as 
a Special Assistant and Area Director for the 27-town area 
of greater Fitchburg and Gardner. 

Commissioner Parks is active in many other community 
organizations, including the National Association of Social 
Workers, the League of Women Voters, the National 
Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the 
Western Massachusetts Black Republican Caucus, and the 
Pioneer Valley Force for Racial Unity, as well as serving as 
co-chair of the Amherst Republican Town Committee. 

Commissioner Parks manages the mcad's Springfield 
off^ice of the mcad and has responsibility for the western 
Massachusetts activities of the Commission. 



Commissioner Naomi Martell 

Naomi Martell was appointed to the Commission in 
August of 1991. She graduated from the InterAmerican 
University in San Juan, Puerto Rico in 1973 with a 
Bachelor's Degree in Sociology. She received a Master's 
degree in Criminology from the InterAmerican University 
in 1974. Before coming to the Commission, Ms. Martell 
worked as an Equal Opportunity Specialist, first at the 
United States Department of Education, then at the 
United States Department of Defense. Commissioner 
Martell has served as vice-president of Inquilinos en 
Accion, a non-profit community development group. She 
is co-founder of the Boston chapter of Image, a national 
organization focusing on the improvement of employ- 
ment opportunities for Hispanics, and is a member of the 
Massachusetts Hispanic Political Coalition. 



According to Massachusetts General Laws, 
Chapter 6, Section 6, "The Governor shall 
appoint an Advisory Board to the Commission, 
consisting of not less than twenty-one persons, who 
shall serve at his pleasure... The Board shall advise the 
Commission and the Governor on matters of policy 
affecting the Commission, and shall review the imple- 
mentation of the Commission's programs and policies 
and from time to time report their conclusions to the 
Commission and the Governor." 

Statewide Advisory Board Members: 



1 Marjorie Perry, 


B Tom Saltonstall, 


Co-Chair 


Co-Chair 


M Naomi Adelberg 


B Harold Langford 


■ John Adkins 


B Patricia Lomans 


1 Benjamin Fierro 


B Alexander Macmillan 


B Linda Giles 


B April Maselli 


1 Lynn Girton 


B Eve Moss 


H Shirley Gomes 


B Haydee Nazario 


B Lawrence Hogan 


B Nam Van Pham 


B Sherman Josephson 


B Kimball Pino 


B John Kelly 


B Prema Popat 


B David LaFontaine 


B Glendora Putnam 




B Herman Wheeler 



Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination 

One Ashburton Place, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 • (617) 727-3990 



Publication No. 17218 - 20 - 1M- 10/92 - .84- C.R. 
Approved by: Philmore Anderson III, State Purchasing Agent 



Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination 

One Ashburton Place, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 • (617) 727-3990 



A J J00KBIND2R 

MAR 1993 

WALiMAiVf iWM 02104 
(6I7)t^3-3051